﻿The Project Gutenberg eBook, Essays on Mankind and Political Arithmetic,
by William Petty, Edited by Henry Morley
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: Essays on Mankind and Political Arithmetic
Author: William Petty
Editor: Henry Morley
Release Date: August 3, 2014 [eBook #5619]
[This file was first posted on July 23, 2002]
Language: English
Character set encoding: UTF-8
***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ESSAYS ON MANKIND AND POLITICAL
ARITHMETIC***
Transcribed from the Cassell & Co. edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org
[Picture: Book cover]
ESSAYS ON MANKIND AND POLITICAL ARITHMETIC
INTRODUCTION.
WILLIAM PETTY, born on the 26th of May, 1623, was the son of a clothier
at Romsey in Hampshire. After education at the Romsey Grammar School, he
continued his studies at Caen in Normandy. There he supported himself by
a little trade while learning French, and advancing his knowledge of
Greek, Latin, Mathematics, and much else that belonged to his idea of a
liberal education. His idea was large. He came back to England, and had
for a short time a place in the Navy; but at the age of twenty he went
abroad again, and was away three years, studying actively at Utrecht,
Leyden, and Amsterdam, and also in Paris. In Paris he assisted Thomas
Hobbes in drawing diagrams for his treatise on optics. At the age of
twenty-four Petty took out a patent for the invention of a copying
machine. It was described in a folio pamphlet “On Double Writing.” That
was in 1647, in Civil War time, and although Petty followed Hobbes in his
studies, he did not share the philosopher’s political opinions, but held
with the Parliament. In 1648 he added to his former pamphlet a
“Declaration concerning the newly invented Art of Double Writing.”
Samuel Hartlib, the large-hearted Pole, who in those days spent his
worldly means in England for the advancement of agriculture and of
education, and other aids to the well-being of a nation, had caused
Milton to write his letter on education, as has been shown in the
Introduction to the hundred and twenty-first volume of this Library,
which contains that Letter together with Milton’s Areopagitica. Young
Petty’s first published writing was a Letter to Hartlib on Education,
entitled “The Advice of W. P. to Mr. Samuel Hartlib for the Advancement
of some Particular Parts of Learning.” This appeared in 1648, when
Petty’s age was twenty-five, and its aim was to suggest a wider view of
the whole field of education than had been possible in the Middle Ages,
of which schools and colleges were then preserving the traditions, as
they do still here and there to some extent. This pamphlet has been
reprinted in the sixth volume of the “Harleian Miscellany.” William
Petty wished the training of the young to be in several respects more
practical.
His own activity of mind caused him to settle at Oxford, where he taught
anatomy and chemistry, which he had been studying abroad. He had read
with Hobbes the writings of Vesalius, the great founder of modern
practical anatomy. In 1649 William Petty graduated at Oxford as Doctor
of Medicine, obtained a fellowship at Brasenose, and practised. In 1650
he surprised the public by restoring the action of the lungs in a woman
who had been hanged for infanticide, and so restoring her to life.
Dr. Petty now took his place at Oxford among the energetic men of science
who had been inspired by the teaching of Francis Bacon to seek knowledge
by direct experiment, and to value knowledge above all things for its
power of advancing the welfare of man. The headquarters of these workers
were at Oxford, and in London at Gresham College.
In 1650 Petty was made Professor of Anatomy at Oxford, and it is a
characteristic illustration of his great activity of mind that he was at
the same time Professor of Music at Gresham College. Music had then a
high place in the Seven Sciences, as that use of regulated numbers which
expressed the harmonies of the created world. The Seven Sciences were
divided into three of the Trivium, and four of the Quadrivium. The three
of the Trivium concerned the use of speech; they were Grammar, Rhetoric,
and Logic. The four of the Quadrivium concerned number and measure; they
were Arithmetic, Geometry, Music; and Astronomy, which led up straight to
God. Advance to Music might be represented in the student’s mind by his
reaching to a sense of the harmonious relation of all his studies, which,
so to speak, lived in his mind as a single well-proportioned thought.
In 1652 Dr. Petty was sent to Ireland as physician to the army of the
Commonwealth. While there his active mind observed that the Survey on
which the Government had based its distribution of fortified lands to the
soldiers had been “most inefficiently and absurdly managed.” He obtained
the commission to make a fresh Survey, which he completed accurately in
thirteen months, and by which he obtained in payments from the Government
and from other persons interested ten thousand pounds. By investing this
in the purchase of soldiers’ claims, he secured for himself an Irish
estate of fifty thousand acres in the county of Kerry, opened upon it
mines and quarries, developed trade in timber, and set up a fishery.
John Evelyn said of him “that he had never known such another genius, and
that if Evelyn were a prince he would make Petty his second councillor at
least.” Henry Cromwell as Lord Deputy in Ireland made Petty his
secretary.
Petty’s Maps were printed in 1685, two years before his death, as
“Hiberniæ Delineatio quoad hactenus licuit perfectissima;” a collection
of thirty-six maps, with a portrait of Sir William Petty, a work
answering to its description as the most perfect delineation of Ireland
that had up to that time been obtained. There is a coloured copy of
Petty’s maps in the British Museum, and also an uncoloured copy, with the
first five maps varying from those in the coloured copy, and giving a
General Map of Ireland, followed by Maps of Leinster, Munster, Ulster,
and Connaught. There was afterwards published in duodecimo, without
date, “A Geographical Description of ye Kingdom of Ireland, collected
from ye actual Survey made by Sir William Petty, corrected and amended,
engraven and published by Fra. Lamb.” This volume gives as its contents,
“one general mapp, four provincial mapps, and thirty-two county mapps; to
which is added a mapp of Great Brittaine and Ireland, together with an
Index of the whole.”
At the Restoration William Petty accepted the inevitable change, and
continued his service to the country. He was knighted by Charles the
Second, and appointed in 1661 Inspector-General of Ireland. He entered
Parliament. He was one of the first founders of the Royal Society,
established at the beginning of the reign of Charles the Second; and the
outcome of these scientific studies along the line marked out by Francis
Bacon, which had been actively pursued in Oxford and at Gresham College.
In 1663 he applied his ingenuity to the invention of a swift
double-bottomed ship, that made one or two passages between England and
Ireland, but was then lost in a storm.
In 1670 Sir William Petty established on his lands at Kerry the English
settlement at the head of the bay of Kenmare. The building of forty-two
houses for the English settlers first laid the foundations of the present
town of Kenmare. “The population,” writes Lord Macaulay, “amounted to a
hundred and eighty. The land round the town was well cultivated. The
cattle were numerous. Two small barks were employed in fishing and
trading along the coast. The supply of herrings, pilchards, mackerel,
and salmon, was plentiful, and would have been still more plentiful had
not the beach been, in the finest part of the year, covered by multitudes
of seals, which preyed on the fish of the bay. Yet the seal was not an
unwelcome visitor: his fur was valuable; and his oil supplied light
through the long nights of winter. An attempt was made with great
success to set up ironworks. It was not yet the practice to employ coal
for the purpose of smelting; and the manufacturers of Kent and Sussex had
much difficulty in procuring timber at a reasonable price. The
neighbourhood of Kenmare was then richly wooded; and Petty found it a
gainful speculation to send ore thither.” He looked also for profit from
the variegated marbles of adjacent islands. Distant two days’ journey
over the mountains from the nearest English, Petty’s English settlement
of Kenmare withstood all surrounding dangers, and in 1688, a year after
its founder’s death, defended itself successfully against a fierce and
general attack.
Sir William Petty died at London, on the 16th of December, 1687, and was
buried in his native town of Romsey. He had added to his great wealth by
marriage, and was the founder of the family in which another Sir William
Petty became Earl of Shelburne and first Marquis of Lansdowne. The son
of that first Marquis was Henry third Marquis of Lansdowne, who took a
conspicuous part in our political history during the present century.
Sir William Petty’s survey of the land in Ireland, called the Down
Survey, because its details were set down in maps, remains the legal
record of the title on which half the land in Ireland is held. The
original maps are preserved in the Public Record Office at Dublin, and
many of Petty’s MSS. are in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
He published in 1662 and 1685 a “Treatise of Taxes and Contributions, the
same being frequently to the present state and affairs of Ireland,” of
which his view started from the general opinion that men should
contribute to the public charge according to their interest in the public
peace—that is, according to their riches. “Now,” he said, “there are two
sorts of riches—one actual, and the other potential. A man is actually
and truly rich according to what he eateth, drinketh, weareth, or in any
other way really and actually enjoyeth. Others are but potentially and
imaginatively rich, who though they have power over much, make little use
of it, these being rather stewards and exchangers for the other sort than
owners for themselves.” He then showed how he considered that “every man
ought to contribute according to what he taketh to himself, and actually
enjoyeth.”
In 1674 Sir William Petty published a paper on “Duplicate Proportion,”
and in 1679 he published in Latin a “Colloquy of David with his Own
Soul.” In 1682 he published a tract called “Quantulumcunque, concerning
Money;” and “England’s Guide to Industry,” in 1686. From 1682 to 1687,
the year of his death, Sir William Petty was drawing great attention to
the “Essays on Political Arithmetic,” which are here reprinted. There
was the little “Essay in Political Arithmetic, concerning the People,
Housings, Hospitals of London and Paris;” published in 1682, again in
French in 1686, and again in English in 1687. There was the little
“Essay concerning the Multiplication of Mankind, together with an Essay
on the Growth of London,” published in 1682, and again in 1683 and 1686.
There was in 1683, “Another Essay in Political Arithmetic concerning the
growth of the City of London.” There were “Farther Considerations on the
Dublin Bills of Mortality,” in 1686; and “Five Essays on Political
Arithmetic” (in French and English), “Observations upon the Cities of
London and Rome,” in 1687, the last year of Sir William Petty’s life.
Other writings of his were published in his lifetime, or have been
published since his death. He was in the study of political economy one
of the most ingenious and practical thinkers before the days of Adam
Smith.
But the interest of those “Essays in Political Arithmetic” lies chiefly
in the facts presented by so trustworthy an authority. London had become
in the time of the Stuarts the most populous city in Europe, if not in
the world. This Sir William Petty sought to prove against the doubts of
foreign and other critics, and his “Political Arithmetic” was an
endeavour to determine the relative strength in population of the chief
cities of England, France, and Holland. His application of arithmetic in
the first of these essays to a census of the population at the Day of
Judgment he himself spoke of slightingly. It is a curious example of a
bygone form of theological discussion. But his tables and his reasonings
upon them grow in interest as he attempts his numbering of the people in
the reign of James II. by collecting facts upon which his deductions
might be founded. The references to the deaths by Plague in London
before the cleansing of the town by the great fire of 1666 are very
suggestive; and in one passage there is incidental note of delay in the
coming of the Plague then due, without reckoning the change made in
conditions of health by the rebuilding. Nobody knew, and no one even now
can calculate, how many lives the Fire of London saved.
There was in Petty’s time no direct numbering of the people. The first
census in this country was not until more than a hundred years after Sir
William Petty’s death, although he points out in these essays how easily
it could be established, and what useful information it would give.
There was a census taken at Rome 566 years before Christ. But the first
census in Great Britain was taken in 1801, under provision of an Act
passed on the last day of the year 1800, to secure a numbering of the
population every ten years. Ireland was not included in the return; the
first census in Ireland was not until the year 1813.
Sir William Petty had to base his calculations partly upon the Bills of
Mortality, which had been imperfectly begun under Elizabeth, but fell
into disuse, and were revived, as a weekly record of the number of
deaths, beginning on the 29th of October, 1603; notices of diseases first
appeared in them in 1629. The weekly bills were published every
Thursday, and any householder could have them supplied to him for four
shillings a year. These essays will show how inferences as to the number
of the living were drawn from the number of the dead. And even now our
Political Arithmetic depends too much upon rough calculations made from
the death register. It is seven years since the last census; we have
lost count of the changes in our population to a very great extent, and
have to wait three years before our reckoning can be made sure. The
interval should be reduced to five years.
Another of Sir William Petty’s helps in the arithmetic of population was
the Chimney Tax, a revival of the old fumage or hearth-money—smoke
farthings, as the people called them—once paid, according to Domesday
Book, for every chimney in a house. Charles the Second had set up a
chimney tax in the year 1662; the statistics of the collection were at
the service of Sir William Petty. The tax outlived him but two years.
It was promptly abolished in the first year of William and Mary.
The interest taken at home and abroad in these calculations of Political
Arithmetic set other men calculating, and reasoning upon their
calculations. The next worker in that direction was Gregory King,
Lancaster Herald, whose calculations immediately followed those of Sir
William Petty. Sir William Petty’s essays extended from 1682 until his
death in 1687. Gregory King’s estimates were made in 1689. They were a
study of the number population and distribution of wealth among us at the
time of the English Revolution, and the unpublished results were first
printed in a chapter on “The People of England,” which formed part a
volume published in 1699 as “An Essay upon the Probable Methods of making
a People Gainers in the Balance of Trade, by the Author of the Essay on
Ways and Means.” The volume was written by a member of Parliament in the
days of William and Mary, who desired to apply principles of political
economy to the maintenance of English wealth and liberty. It has been
wrongly scribed to Defoe; and its suggestion of the plan a trading
Corporation for solution of the whole problem of relief to the poor who
cannot work, and relief from the poor who can, might indeed make another
chapter in Defoe’s “Essay on Projects.” The chapter, which gives the
Political Arithmetic of Gregory King, with such comment and suggestions
as might be expected from a liberal supporter of the Revolution, and with
this suggestion of a Corporation, is in itself a complete essay. It
follows naturally upon the Political Arithmetic of Sir William Petty in
close sequence of time, and in carrying a like method of inquiry forward
until it reaches a few more conclusions. I have, therefore, added it to
this volume. It seems, at any rate, to show how Sir William Petty’s
books, of which the very small size grieved the stationer, had a large
influence on other minds; his figures bearing fruit in a new search for
facts and careful reasoning on the condition of the country at one of the
most critical times in English history.
H. M.
THE STATIONER TO THE READER.
THE ensuing essay concerning the growth of the city of London was
entitled “Another Essay,” intimating that some other essay had preceded
it, which was not to be found. I having been much importuned for that
precedent essay, have found that the same was about the growth, increase,
and multiplication of mankind, which subject should in order of nature
precede that of the growth of the city of London, but am not able to
procure the essay itself, only I have obtained from a gentleman, who
sometimes corresponded with Sir W. Petty, an extract of a letter from Sir
William to him, which I verily believe containeth the scope thereof;
wherefore, I must desire the reader to be content therewith, till more
can be had.
* * * * *
_The extract of a letter concerning the scope of an essay intended to
precede another essay concerning the growth of the City of London_, _&c._
_An Essay in Political Arithmetic_, _concerning the value and increase of
People and Colonies_.
THE scope of this essay is concerning people and colonies, and to make
way for “Another Essay” concerning the growth of the city of London. I
desire in this first essay to give the world some light concerning the
numbers of people in England, with Wales, and in Ireland; as also of the
number of houses and families wherein they live, and of acres they
occupy.
2. How many live upon their lands, how many upon their personal estates
and commerce, and how many upon art, and labour; how many upon alms, how
many upon offices and public employments, and how many as cheats and
thieves; how many are impotents, children, and decrepit old men.
3. How many upon the poll-taxes in England, do pay extraordinary rates,
and how many at the level.
4. How many men and women are prolific, and how many of each are married
or unmarried.
5. What the value of people are in England, and what in Ireland at a
medium, both as members of the Church or Commonwealth, or as slaves and
servants to one another; with a method how to estimate the same, in any
other country or colony.
6. How to compute the value of land in colonies, in comparison to
England and Ireland.
7. How 10,000 people in a colony may be planted to the best advantage.
8. A conjecture in what number of years England and Ireland may be fully
peopled, as also all America, and lastly the whole habitable earth.
9. What spot of the earth’s globe were fittest for a general and
universal emporium, whereby all the people thereof may best enjoy one
another’s labours and commodities.
10. Whether the speedy peopling of the earth would make
(1) For the good of mankind.
(2) To fulfil the revealed will of God.
(3) To what prince or State the same would be most advantageous.
11. An exhortation to all thinking men to solve the Scriptures and other
good histories, concerning the number of people in all ages of the world,
in the great cities thereof, and elsewhere.
12. An appendix concerning the different number of sea-fish and
wild-fowl at the end of every thousand years since Noah’s Flood.
13. An hypothesis of the use of those spaces (of about 8,000 miles
through) within the globe of our earth, supposing a shell of 150 miles
thick.
14. What may be the meaning of glorified bodies, in case the place of
the blessed shall be without the convex of the orb of the fixed stars, if
that the whole system of the world was made for the use of our earth’s
men.
THE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF THIS DISCOURSE.
1. THAT London doubles in forty years, and all England in three hundred
and sixty years.
2. That there be, A.D. 1682, about 670,000 souls in London, and about
7,400,000 in all England and Wales, and about 28,000,000 of acres of
profitable land.
3. That the periods of doubling the people are found to be, in all
degrees, from between ten to twelve hundred years.
4. That the growth of London must stop of itself before the year 1800.
5. A table helping to understand the Scriptures, concerning the number
of people mentioned in them.
6. That the world will be fully peopled within the next two thousand
years.
7. Twelve ways whereby to try any proposal pretended for the public
good.
8. How the city of London may be made (morally speaking) invincible.
9. A help to uniformity in religion.
10. That it is possible to increase mankind by generation four times
more than at present.
11. The plagues of London is the chief impediment and objection against
the growth of the city.
12. That an exact account of the people is necessary in this matter.
OF THE GROWTH OF THE CITY OF LONDON:
_And of the Measures_, _Periods_, _Causes_, _and Consequences thereof_.
BY the city of London we mean the housing within the walls of the old
city, with the liberties thereof, Westminster, the Borough of Southwark,
and so much of the built ground in Middlesex and Surrey, whose houses are
contiguous unto, or within call of those aforementioned. Or else we mean
the housing which stand upon the ninety-seven parishes within the walls
of London; upon the sixteen parishes next without them; the six parishes
of Westminster, and the fourteen out-parishes in Middlesex and Surrey,
contiguous to the former, all which, 133 parishes, are comprehended
within the weekly bills of mortality.
The growth of this city is measured. (1) By the quantity of ground, or
number of acres upon which it stands. (2) By the number of houses, as
the same appears by the hearth-books and late maps. (3) By the cubical
content of the said housing. (4) By the flooring of the same. (5) By
the number of days’ work, or charge of building the said houses. (6) By
the value of the said houses, according to their yearly rent, and number
of years’ purchase. (7) By the number of inhabitants; according to which
latter sense only we make our computations in this essay.
Till a better rule can be obtained, we conceive that the proportion of
the people may be sufficiently measured by the proportion of the burials
in such years as were neither remarkable for extraordinary healthfulness
or sickliness.
That the city hath increased in this latter sense appears from the bills
of mortality represented in the two following tables, viz., one whereof
is a continuation for eighteen years, ending 1682, of that table which
was published in the 117th page of the book of the observations upon the
London bills of mortality, printed in the year 1676. The other showeth
what number of people died at a medium of two years, indifferently taken,
at about twenty years’ distance from each other.
The first of the said two tables.
A.D. 97 Parishes. 16 Parishes. Out Parishes. Buried in Besides of Christened.
all. the Plague.
1665 5,320 12,463 10,925 28,708 68,596 9,967
1666 1,689 3,969 5,082 10,740 1,998 8,997
1667 761 6,405 8,641 15,807 35 10,938
1668 796 6,865 9,603 17,267 14 11,633
1669 1,323 7,500 10,440 19,263 3 12,335
1670 1,890 7,808 10,500 20,198 11,997
1671 1,723 5,938 8,063 15,724 5 12,510
1672 2,237 6,788 9,200 18,225 5 12,593
1673 2,307 6,302 8,890 17,499 5 11,895
1674 2,801 7,522 10,875 21,198 3 11,851
1675 2,555 5,986 8,702 17,243 1 11,775
1676 2,756 6,508 9,466 18,730 2 12,399
1677 2,817 6,632 9,616 19,065 2 12,626
1678 3,060 6,705 10,908 20,673 5 12,601
1679 3,074 7,481 11,173 21,728 2 12,288
1680 3,076 7,066 10,911 21,053 12,747
1681 3,669 8,136 12,166 23,971 13,355
1682 2,975 7,009 10,707 20,691 12,653
According to which latter table there died as follows:—
THE LATTER OF THE SAID TWO TABLES.
_There died in London at the medium between the years_—
1604 and 1605 5,135. A.
1621 and 1622 8,527 B.
1641 and 1642 11,883 C.
1661 and 1662 15,148. D.
1681 and 1682 22,331. E.
Wherein observe, that the number C is double to A and 806 over. That D
is double to B within 1,906. That C and D is double to A and B within
293. That E is double to C within 1,435. That D and E is double to B
and C within 3,341; and that C and D and E are double to A and B and C
within 1,736; and that E is above quadruple to A. All which differences
(every way considered) do allow the doubling of the people of London in
40 years to be a sufficient estimate thereof in round numbers, and
without the trouble of fractions. We also say that 669,930 is near the
number of people now in London, because the burials are 22,331, which,
multiplied by 30 (one dying yearly out of 30, as appears in the 94th page
of the aforementioned observations), maketh the said number; and because
there are 84,000 tenanted houses (as we are credibly informed), which, at
8 in each, makes 672,000 souls; the said two accounts differing
inconsiderably from each other.
We have thus pretty well found out in what number of years (viz., in
about 40) that the city of London hath doubled, and the present number of
inhabitants to be about 670,000. We must now also endeavour the same for
the whole territory of England and Wales. In order whereunto, we first
say that the assessment of London is about an eleventh part of the whole
territory, and, therefore, that the people of the whole may well be
eleven times that of London, viz., about 7,369,000 souls; with which
account that of the poll-money, hearth-money, and the bishop’s late
numbering of the communicants, do pretty well agree; wherefore, although
the said number of 7,369,000 be not (as it cannot be) a demonstrated
truth, yet it will serve for a good supposition, which is as much as we
want at present.
As for the time in which the people double, it is yet more hard to be
found. For we have good experience (in the said page 94 of the
aforementioned observations) that in the country but 1 of 50 die per
annum; and by other late accounts, that there have been sometimes but 24
births for 23 burials. The which two points, if they were universally
and constantly true, there would be colour enough to say that the people
doubled but in about 1,200 years. As, for example, suppose there be 600
people, of which let a fiftieth part die per annum, then there shall die
12 per annum; and if the births be as 24 to 23, then the increase of the
people shall be somewhat above half a man per annum, and consequently the
supposed number of 600 cannot be doubled but in 1,126 years, which, to
reckon in round numbers, and for that the aforementioned fractions were
not exact, we had rather call 1,200.
There are also other good observations, that even in the country one in
about 30 or 32 per annum hath died, and that there have been five births
for four burials. Now, according to this doctrine, 20 will die per annum
out of the above 600, and 25 will be born, so as the increase will be
five, which is a hundred and twentieth part of the said 600. So as we
have two fair computations, differing from each other as one to ten; and
there are also several other good observations for other measures.
I might here insert, that although the births in this last computation be
25 of 600, or a twenty-fourth part of the people, yet that in natural
possibility they may be near thrice as many, and near 75. For that by
some late observations, the teeming females between 15 and 44 are about
180 of the said 600, and the males of between 18 and 59 are about 180
also, and that every teeming woman can bear a child once in two years;
from all which it is plain that the births may be 90 (and abating 15 for
sickness, young abortions, and natural barrenness), there may remain 75
births, which is an eighth of the people, which by some observations we
have found to be but a two-and-thirtieth part, or but a quarter of what
is thus shown to be naturally possible. Now, according to this
reckoning, if the births may be 75 of 600, and the burials but 15, then
the annual increase of the people will be 60; and so the said 600 people
may double in ten years, which differs yet more from 1,200
above-mentioned. Now, to get out of this difficulty, and to temper those
vast disagreements, I took the medium of 50 and 30 dying per annum, and
pitched upon 40; and I also took the medium between 24 births and 23
burials, and 5 births for 4 burials, viz., allowing about 10 births for 9
burials; upon which supposition there must die 15 per annum out of the
above-mentioned 600, and the births must be 16 and two-thirds, and the
increase one and two-thirds, or five-thirds of a man, which number,
compared with 1,800 thirds, or 600 men, gives 360 years for the time of
doubling (including some allowance for wars, plagues, and famines, the
effects thereof), though they be terrible at the times and places where
they happen, yet in a period of 360 years is no great matter in the whole
nation. For the plagues of England in twenty years have carried away
scarce an eightieth part of the people of the whole nation; and the late
ten years’ civil wars (the like whereof hath not been in several ages
before) did not take away above a fortieth part of the whole people.
According to which account or measure of doubling, if there be now in
England and Wales 7,400,000 people, there were about 5,526,000 in the
beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, A.D. 1560, and about 2,000,000 at
the Norman Conquest, of which consult the Doomsday Book, and my Lord
Hale’s “Origination of Mankind.”
Memorandum.—That if the people double in 360 years, that the present
320,000,000 computed by some learned men (from the measures of all the
nations of the world, their degrees of being peopled, and good accounts
of the people in several of them) to be now upon the face of the earth,
will within the next 2,000 years so increase as to give one head for
every two acres of land in the habitable part of the earth. And then,
according to the prediction of the Scriptures, there must be wars, and
great slaughter, &c.
Wherefore, as an expedient against the above-mentioned difference between
10 and 1,200 years, we do for the present, and in this country, admit of
360 years to be the time wherein the people of England do double,
according to the present laws and practice of marriages.
Now, if the city double its people in 40 years, and the present number be
670,000, and if the whole territory be 7,400,000, and double in 360
years, as aforesaid, then by the underwritten table it appears that A.D.
1840 the people of the city will be 10,718,880, and those of the whole
country but 10,917,389, which is but inconsiderably more. Wherefore it
is certain and necessary that the growth of the city must stop before the
said year 1840, and will be at its utmost height in the next preceding
period, A.D. 1800, when the number of the city will be eight times its
present number, 5,359,000. And when (besides the said number) there will
be 4,466,000 to perform the tillage, pasturage, and other rural works
necessary to be done without the said city, as by the following table,
viz.:—
A.D. Burials. People in People in
London. England.
1565 2,568 77,040 5,526,929
As in the 1605 5,135
former table.
1642 11,883
1682 22,331 669,930 7,369,230
1722 44,662
1762 89,324
1802 178,648 5,359,440 9,825,650
1842 357,296 10,718,889 10,917,389
Now, when the people of London shall come to be so near the people of all
England, then it follows that the growth of London must stop before the
said year 1842, as aforesaid, and must be at its greatest height A.D.
1800, when it will be eight times more than now, with above 4,000,000 for
the service of the country and ports, as aforesaid.
Of the aforementioned vast difference between 10 years and 1,200 years
for doubling the people, we make this use, viz.:—To justify the
Scriptures and all other good histories concerning the number of the
people in ancient time. For supposing the eight persons who came out of
the Ark, increased by a progressive doubling in every ten years, might
grow in the first 100 years after the Flood from 8 to 8,000, and that in
350 years after the Flood (whereabouts Noah died) to 1,000,000 and by
this time, 1682, to 320,000,000 (which by rational conjecture are thought
to be now in the world), it will not be hard to compute how, in the
intermediate years, the growths may be made, according to what is set
down in the following table, wherein making the doubling to be ten years
at first, and within 1,200 years at last, we take a discretionary
liberty, but justifiable by observations and the Scriptures for the rest,
which table we leave to be corrected by historians who know the bigness
of ancient cities, armies, and colonies in the respective ages of the
world, in the meantime affirming that without such difference in the
measures and periods for doubling (the extremes whereof we have
demonstrated to be real and true) it is impossible to solve what is
written in the Holy Scriptures and other authentic books. For if we
pitch upon any one number throughout for this purpose, 150 years is the
fittest of all round numbers; according to which there would have been
but 512 souls in the whole world in Moses’ time (being 800 years after
the Flood), when 603,000 Israelites of above twenty years old (besides
those of other ages, tribes, and nations) were found upon an exact survey
appointed by God, whereas our table makes 12,000,000. And there would
have been about 8,000 in David’s time, when were found 1,100,000, of
above twenty years old (besides others, as aforesaid) in Israel, upon the
survey instigated by Satan, whereas our table makes 32,000,000. And
there would have been but a quarter of a million about the birth of
Christ, or Augustus’s time, when Rome and the Roman Empire were so great,
whereas our table makes 100,000,000. Where note, that the Israelites in
about 500 years, between their coming out of Egypt to David’s reign,
increased from 603,000 to 1,100,000.
On the other hand, if we pitch upon a less number, as 100 years, the
world would have been over-peopled 700 years since. Wherefore no one
number will solve the phenomena, and therefore we have supposed several,
in order to make the following table, which we again desire historians to
correct, according to what they find in antiquity concerning the number
of the people in each age and country of the world.
We did (not long since) assist a worthy divine, writing against some
sceptics, who would have baffled our belief of the resurrection, by
saying, that the whole globe of the earth could not furnish matter enough
for all the bodies that must rise at the last day, much less would the
surface of the earth furnish footing for so vast a number; whereas we did
(by the method afore mentioned) assert the number of men now living, and
also of those that had died since the beginning of the world, and did
withal show, that half the island of Ireland would afford them all, not
only footing to stand upon, but graves to lie down in, for that whole
number; and that two mountains in that country were as weighty as all the
bodies that had ever been from the beginning of the world to the year
1680, when this dispute happened. For which purpose I have digressed
from my intended purpose to insert this matter, intending to prosecute
this hint further upon some more proper occasion.
A TABLE SHOWING HOW THE PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE DOUBLED IN THE SEVERAL AGES OF
THE WORLD.
Periods of doubling A.D., after the Persons.
Flood.
In 10 years 1 8
10 16
20 32
30 64
40 128
50 256
60 512
70 1,024
80 2,048
90 4,096
100 8,000 and more.
120 16,000
In 20 years 140 32,000
In 30 years 170 64,000
200 128,000
40 240 256,000
50 290 512,000
60 350 1,000,000 and more.
70 420 2,000,000
100 520 4,000,000
190 710 8,000,000
290 1,000 16,000,000 in Moses’
time.
400 1,400 32,000,000 about
David’s time.
550 1,950 64,000,000
750 2,700 128,000,000 about the
birth of Christ.
1,000 3,700 256,000,000
300
In 300 / 1,200 4,000 320,000,000
It is here to be noted, that in this table we have assigned a different
number of years for the time of doubling the people in the several ages
of the world, and might have done the same for the several countries of
the world, and therefore the said several periods assigned to the whole
world in the lump may well enough consist with the 360 years especially
assigned to England, between this day and the Norman Conquest; and the
said 360 years may well enough serve for a supposition between this time
and that of the world’s being fully peopled; nor do we lay any stress
upon one or the other in this disquisition concerning the growth of the
city of London.
We have spoken of the growth of London, with the measures and periods
thereof; we come next to the causes and consequences of the same.
The causes of its growth from 1642 to 1682 may be said to have been as
follows, viz.:—From 1642 to 1650, that men came out of the country to
London, to shelter themselves from the outrages of the Civil Wars during
that time; from 1650 to 1660, the royal party came to London for their
more private and inexpensive living; from 1660 to 1670, the king’s
friends and party came to receive his favours after his happy
restoration; from 1670 to 1680, the frequency of plots and parliaments
might bring extraordinary numbers to the city; but what reasons to assign
for the like increase from 1604 to 1642 I know not, unless I should pick
out some remarkable accident happening in each part of the said period,
and make that to be the cause of this increase (as vulgar people make the
cause of every man’s sickness to be what he did last eat), wherefore,
rather than so to say _quidlibet de quolibet_, I had rather quit even
what I have above said to be the cause of London’s increase from 1642 to
1682, and put the whole upon some natural and spontaneous benefits and
advantages that men find by living in great more than in small societies,
and shall therefore seek for the antecedent causes of this growth in the
consequences of the like, considered in greater characters and
proportions.
Now, whereas in arithmetic, out of two false positions the truth is
extracted, so I hope out of two extravagant contrary suppositions to draw
forth some solid and consistent conclusion, viz.:—
The first of the said two suppositions is, that the city of London is
seven times bigger than now, and that the inhabitants of it are 4,690,000
people, and that in all the other cities, ports, towns, and villages,
there are but 2,710,000 more.
The other supposition is, that the city of London is but a seventh part
of its present bigness, and that the inhabitants of it are but 96,000,
and that the rest of the inhabitants (being 7,304,000) do cohabit thus:
104,000 of them in small cities and towns, and that the rest, being
7,200,000, do inhabit in houses not contiguous to one another, viz., in
1,200,000 houses, having about twenty-four acres of ground belonging to
each of them, accounting about 28,000,000 of acres to be in the whole
territory of England, Wales, and the adjacent islands, which any man that
pleases may examine upon a good map.
Now, the question is, in which of these two imaginary states would be the
most convenient, commodious, and comfortable livings?
But this general question divides itself into the several questions,
relating to the following particulars, viz.:—
1. For the defence of the kingdom against foreign powers.
2. For preventing the intestine commotions of parties and factions.
3. For peace and uniformity in religion.
4. For the administration of justice.
5. For the proportionably taxing of the people, and easy levying the
same.
6. For gain by foreign commerce.
7. For husbandry, manufacture, and for arts of delight and ornament.
8. For lessening the fatigue of carriages and travelling.
9. For preventing beggars and thieves.
10. For the advancement and propagation of useful learning.
11. For increasing the people by generation.
12. For preventing the mischiefs of plagues and contagious. And withal,
which of the said two states is most practicable and natural, for in
these and the like particulars do lie the tests and touchstones of all
proposals that can be made for the public good.
First, as to practicable, we say, that although our said extravagant
proposals are both in nature possible, yet it is not obvious to every man
to conceive how London, now seven times bigger than in the beginning of
Queen Elizabeth’s reign, should be seven times bigger than now it is, and
forty-nine times bigger than A.D. 1560. To which I say, 1. That the
present city of London stands upon less than 2,500 acres of ground,
wherefore a city seven times as large may stand upon 10,500 acres, which
is about equivalent to a circle of four miles and a half in diameter, and
less than fifteen miles in circumference. 2. That a circle of ground of
thirty-five miles semidiameter will bear corn, garden-stuff, fruits, hay,
and timber, for the 4,690,000 inhabitants of the said city and circle, so
as nothing of that kind need be brought from above thirty-five miles
distance from the said city; for the number of acres within the said
circle, reckoning two acres sufficient to furnish bread and drink-corn
for every head, and two acres will furnish hay for every necessary horse;
and that the trees which may grow in the hedgerows of the fields within
the said circle may furnish timber for 600,000 houses. 3. That all live
cattle and great animals can bring themselves to the said city; and that
fish can be brought from the Land’s End and Berwick as easily as now. 4.
Of coals there is no doubt: and for water, 20s. per family (or £600,000
per annum in the whole) will serve this city, especially with the help of
the New River. But if by practicable be understood that the present
state may be suddenly changed into either of the two above-mentioned
proposals, I think it is not practicable. Wherefore the true question
is, unto or towards which of the said two extravagant states it is best
to bend the present state by degrees, viz., Whether it be best to lessen
or enlarge the present city? In order whereunto, we inquire (as to the
first question) which state is most defensible against foreign powers,
saying, that if the above-mentioned housing, and a border of ground, of
three-quarters of a mile broad, were encompassed with a wall and ditch of
twenty miles about (as strong as any in Europe, which would cost but a
million, or about a penny in the shilling of the house-rent for one year)
what foreign prince could bring an army from beyond seas, able to beat—1.
Our sea-forces, and next with horse harassed at sea, to resist all the
fresh horse that England could make, and then conquer above a million of
men, well united, disciplined, and guarded within such a wall, distant
everywhere three-quarters of a mile from the housing, to elude the
granadoes and great shot of the enemy? 2. As to intestine parties and
factions, I suppose that 4,690,000 people united within this great city
could easily govern half the said number scattered without it, and that a
few men in arms within the said city and wall could also easily govern
the rest unarmed, or armed in such a manner as the Sovereign shall think
fit. 3. As to uniformity in religion, I conceive, that if St. Martin’s
parish (may as it doth) consist of about 40,000 souls, that this great
city also may as well be made but as one parish, with seven times 130
chapels, in which might not only be an uniformity of common prayer, but
in preaching also; for that a thousand copies of one judiciously and
authentically composed sermon might be every week read in each of the
said chapels without any subsequent repetition of the same, as in the
case of homilies. Whereas in England (wherein are near 10,000 parishes,
in each of which upon Sundays, holy days, and other extraordinary
occasions there should be about 100 sermons annum, making about a million
of sermons per annum in the whole) it were a miracle, if a million of
sermons composed by so many men, and of so many minds and methods, should
produce uniformity upon the discomposed understandings of about 8,000,000
of hearers.
4. As to the administration of justice. If in this great city shall
dwell the owners of all the lands, and other valuable things in England;
if within it shall be all the traders, and all the courts, offices,
records, juries, and witnesses; then it follows that justice may be done
with speed and ease.
5. As to the equality and easy levying of taxes. It is too certain that
London hath at some time paid near half the excise of England, and that
the people pay thrice as much for the hearths in London as those in the
country, in proportion to the people of each, and that the charge of
collecting these duties have been about a sixth part of the duty itself.
Now in this great city the excise alone according to the present laws
would not only be double to the whole kingdom, but also more equal. And
the duty of hearths of the said city would exceed the present proceed of
the whole kingdom. And as for the customs we mention them not at
present.
6. Whether more would be gained by foreign commerce? The gain which
England makes by lead, coals, the freight of shipping, &c., may be the
same, for aught I see, in both cases. But the gain which is made by
manufactures will be greater as the manufacture itself is greater and
better. For in so vast a city manufactures will beget one another, and
each manufacture will be divided into as many parts as possible, whereby
the work of each artisan will be simple and easy. As, for example, in
the making of a watch, if one man shall make the wheels, another the
spring, another shall engrave the dial-plate, and another shall make the
cases, then the watch will be better and cheaper than if the whole work
be put upon any one man. And we also see that in towns, and in the
streets of a great town, where all the inhabitants are almost of one
trade, the commodity peculiar to those places is made better and cheaper
than elsewhere. Moreover, when all sorts of manufactures are made in one
place, there every ship that goeth forth can suddenly have its loading of
so many several particulars and species as the port whereunto she is
bound can take off. Again, when the several manufactures are made in one
place, and shipped off in another, the carriage, postage, and travelling
charges, will enhance the price of such manufacture, and lessen the gain
upon foreign commerce. And lastly, when the imported goods are spent in
the port itself, where they are landed, the carriage of the same into
other places will create no further charge upon such commodity; all which
particulars tend to the greater gain by foreign commerce.
7. As for arts of delight and ornament. They are best promoted by the
greatest number of emulators. And it is more likely that one ingenious
curious man may rather be found out amongst 4,000,000 than 400 persons.
But as for husbandry, viz., tillage and pasturage, I see no reason, but
the second state (when each family is charged with the culture of about
twenty-four acres) will best promote the same.
8. As for lessening the fatigue of carriage and travelling.
The thing speaks for itself, for if all the men of business, and all
artisans, do live within five miles of each other, and if those who live
without the great city do spend only such commodities as grow where they
live, then the charge of carriage and travelling could be little.
9. As to the preventing of beggars and thieves.
I do not find how the differences of the said two states should make much
difference in this particular; for impotents (which are but one in about
600) ought to be maintained by the rest. 2. Those who are unable to
work, through the evil education of their parents, ought (for aught I
know) to be maintained by their nearest kindred, as a just punishment
upon them. 3. And those who cannot find work (though able and willing to
perform it), by reason of the unequal application of hands to lands,
ought to be provided for by the magistrate and landlord till that can be
done; for there need be no beggars in countries where there are many
acres of unimproved improvable land to every head, as there are in
England. As for thieves, they are for the most part begotten from the
same cause; for it is against Nature that any man should venture his
life, limb, or liberty, for a wretched livelihood, whereas moderate
labour will produce a better. But of this see Sir Thomas More, in the
first part of his “Utopia.”
10. As to the propagation and improvement of useful learning.
The same may be said concerning it as was above said concerning
manufactures, and the arts of delight and ornaments; for in the great
vast city there can be no so odd a conceit or design whereunto some
assistance may not be found, which in the thin, scattered way of
habitation may not be.
11. As for the increase of people by generation. I see no great
difference from either of the two states, for the same may be hindered or
promoted in either from the same causes.
12. As to the plague.
It is to be remembered that one time with another a plague happeneth in
London once in twenty years, or thereabouts; for in the last hundred
years, between the years 1582 and 1682, there have been five great
plagues—viz., A.D. 1592, 1603, 1625, 1636, and 1665. And it is also to
be remembered that the plagues of London do commonly kill one-fifth part
of the inhabitants. Now if the whole people of England do double but in
360 years, then the annual increase of the same is but 20,000, and in
twenty years 400,000. But if in the city of London there should be
2,000,000 of people (as there will be about sixty years hence), then the
plague (killing one-fifth of them, namely, 400,000 once in twenty years)
will destroy as many in one year as the whole nation can re-furnish in
twenty; and consequently the people of the nation shall never increase.
But if the people of London shall be above 4,000,000 (as in the first of
our two extravagant suppositions is premised), then the people of the
whole nation shall lessen above 20,000 per annum. So as if people be
worth £70 per head (as hath elsewhere been shown), then the said
greatness of the city will be a damage to itself and the whole nation of
£1,400,000 per annum, and so _pro rata_ for a greater or lesser number;
wherefore to determine which of the two states is best—that is to say,
towards which of the said two states authority should bend the present
state, a just balance ought to be made between the disadvantages from the
plague, with the advantages accruing from the other particulars above
mentioned, unto which balance a more exact account of the people, and a
better rule for the measure of its growth is necessary than what we have
here given, or are yet able to lay down.
POSTSCRIPT.
IT was not very pertinent to a discourse concerning the growth of the
city of London to thrust in considerations of the time when the whole
world will be fully peopled; and how to justify the Scriptures concerning
the number of people mentioned in them; and concerning the number of the
quick and the dead that may rise at the last day, &c. Nevertheless,
since some friends, liking the said digressions and impertinences
(perhaps as sauce to a dry discourse) have desired that the same might be
explained and made out, I, therefore, say as followeth:—
1. If the number of acres in the habitable part of the earth be under
50,000,000,000; if 20,000,000,000 of people are more than the said number
of acres will feed (few or no countries being so fully peopled), and for
that in six doublings (which will be in 2,000 years) the present
320,000,000 will exceed the said 20,000,000,000.
2. That the number of all those who have died since the Flood is the sum
of all the products made by multiplying the number of the doubling
periods mentioned in the first column of the last table, by the number of
people respectively affixed to them in the third column of the same
table, the said sum being divided by 40 (one dying out of 40 per annum
out of the whole mass of mankind), which quotient is 12,570,000,000;
whereunto may be added, for those that died before the Flood, enough to
make the last-mentioned number 20,000,000,000, as the full number of all
that died from the beginning of the world to the year 1682, unto which,
if 320,000,000, the number of those who are now alive, be added, the
total of the quick and the dead will amount but unto one fifth part of
the graves which the surface of Ireland will afford, without ever putting
two bodies into any one grave; for there be in Ireland 28,000 square
English miles, each whereof will afford about 4,000,000 of graves, and
consequently above 114,000,000,000 of graves, viz., about five times the
number of the quick and the dead which should arise at the last day, in
case the same had been in the year 1682.
3. Now, if there may be place for five times as many graves in Ireland
as are sufficient for all that ever died, and if the earth of one grave
weigh five times as much as the body interred therein, then a turf less
than a foot thick pared off from a fifth part of the surface of Ireland,
will be equivalent in bulk and weight to all the bodies that ever were
buried, and may serve as well for that purpose as the two mountains
aforementioned in the body of this discourse. From all which it is plain
how madly they were mistaken who did so petulantly vilify what the Holy
Scriptures have delivered.
FURTHER OBSERVATION UPON THE DUBLIN BILLS;
_Or_, _Accounts of the Houses_, _Hearths_, _Baptisms_, _and Burials in
that City_.
THE STATIONER TO THE READER.
I HAVE not thought fit to make any alteration of the first edition, but
have only added a new table, with observation upon it, placing the same
in the front of what was before, which, perhaps, might have been as well
placed after the like table at the eighth page of the first edition.
* * * * *
DUBLIN, 1682.
Parishes. Houses. Fireplaces. Baptised. Buried.
St. James’s 272 836 } 122 306
St. 540 2,198 }
Katherine’s
St. 1,064 4,082 145 414
Nicholas
Without and
St.
Patrick’s
St. 395 1,903 68 149
Bridget’s
St. 276 1,510 56 164
Audone’s
St. 174 884 34 50
Michael’s
St. John’s 302 1,636 74 101
St. 153 902 26 52
Nicholas
Within and
Christ
Church Lib.
St. 240 1,638 45 105
Warburgh’s
St. 938 3,516 124 389
Michan’s
St. 864 3,638 131 300
Andrew’s
St. Kevin’s 554 2,120 } 87 233
Donnybrook 253 506 }
6,025 25,369 912 2,263
The table hath been made for the year 1682, wherein is to be noted—
1. That the houses which A.D. 1671 were but 3,850 are, A.D. 1682, 6,025;
but whether this difference is caused by the real increase of housing, or
by fraud and defect in the former accounts, is left to consideration.
For the burials of people have increased but from 1,696 to 2,263,
according to which proportion the 3,850 houses A.D. 1671 should A.D. 1682
have been but 5,143, wherefore some fault may be suspected as aforesaid,
when farming the hearth-money was in agitation.
2. The hearths have increased according to the burials, and one-third of
the said increase more, viz., the burials A.D. 1671 were 1,696, the
one-third whereof is 563, which put together makes 2,259, which is near
the number of burials A.D. 1682. But the hearths A.D. 1671 were 17,500,
whereof the one-third is 5,833, making in all but 23,333; whereas the
whole hearths A.D. 1682 were 25,369, viz., one-third and better of the
said 5,833 more.
3. The housing were A.D. 1671 but 3,850, which if they had increased
A.D. 1682 but according to the burials, they had been but 5,143, or,
according to the hearths, had been but 5,488, whereas they appear 6,025,
increasing double to the hearths. So as it is likely there hath been
some error in the said account of the housing, unless the new housing be
very small, and have but one chimney apiece, and that one-fourth part of
them are untenanted. On the other hand, it is more likely that when
1,696 died per annum there were near 6,000; for 6,000 houses at 8
inhabitants per house, would make the number of the people to be 48,000,
and the number of 1,696 that died according to the rule of one out of 30,
would have made the number of inhabitants about 50,000: for which reason
I continue to believe there was some error in the account of 3,850 houses
as aforesaid, and the rather because there is no ground from experience
to think that in eleven years the houses in Dublin have increased from
3,850 to 6,025.
Moreover, I rather think that the number of 6,025 is yet short, because
that number at 8 heads per house makes the inhabitants to be but 48,200;
whereas the 2,263 who died in the year 1682, according to the
aforementioned rule of one dying out of 30 makes the number of people to
be 67,890, the medium betwixt which number and 48,200 is 58,045, which is
the best estimate I can make of that matter, which I hope authority will
ere long rectify, by direct and exact inquiries.
4. As to the births, we say that A.D. 1640, 1641, and 1642, at London,
just before the troubles in religion began, the births were five-sixths
of the burials, by reason I suppose of the greaterness of families in
London above the country, and the fewer breeders, and not for want of
registering. Wherefore, deducting one-sixth of 2,263, which is 377,
there remains 1,886 for the probable number of births in Dublin for the
year 1682; whereas but 912 are represented to have been christened in
that year, though 1,023 were christened A.D. 1671, when there died but
1,696, which decreasing of the christening, and increasing of the
burials, shows the increase of non-registering in the legal books, which
must be the increase of Roman Catholics at Dublin.
The scope of this whole paper therefore is, that the people of Dublin are
rather 58,000 than 32,000, and that the dissenters, who do not register
their baptisms, have increased from 391 to 974: but of dissenters, none
have increased but the Roman Catholics, whose numbers have increased from
about two to five in the said years. The exacter knowledge whereof may
also be better had from direct inquiries.
OBSERVATIONS UPON THE DUBLIN BILLS OF MORTALITY, 1681: AND THE STATE OF
THAT CITY.
THE observations upon the London bills of mortality have been a new light
to the world, and the like observation upon those of Dublin may serve as
snuffers to make the same candle burn clearer.
The London observations flowed from bills regularly kept for near one
hundred years, but these are squeezed out of six straggling London bills,
out of fifteen Dublin bills, and from a note of the families and hearths
in each parish of Dublin, which are all digested into the one table or
sheet annexed, consisting of three parts, marked A, B, C; being indeed
the A, B, C of public economy, and even of that policy which tends to
peace and plenty.
_Observations upon the Table A_.
1. The total of the burials in London (for the said six straggling years
mentioned in the Table A) is 120,170, whereof the medium or sixth part is
20,028, and exceeds the burials of Paris, as may appear by the late bills
of that city.
2. The births, for the same time, are 73,683, the medium or sixth part
whereof is 12,280, which is about five-eighth parts of the burials, and
shows that London would in time decrease quite away, were it not supplied
out of the country, where are about five births for four burials, the
proportion of breeders in the country being greater than in the city.
3. The burials in Dublin for the said six years were 9,865, the sixth
part or medium whereof is 1,644, which is about the twelfth part of the
London burials, and about a fifth part over. So as the people of London
do hereby seem to be above twelve times as many as those of Dublin.
4. The births in the same time at Dublin are 6,157, the sixth part or
medium whereof is 1,026, which is also about five-eighth parts of the
1,644 burials, which shows that the proportion between burials and births
are alike at London and Dublin, and that the accounts are kept alike, and
consequently are likely to be true, there being no confederacy for that
purpose; which, if they be true, we then say—
5. That the births are the best way (till the accounts of the people
shall be purposely taken) whereby to judge of the increase and decrease
of people, that of burials being subject to more contingencies and
variety of causes.
6. If births be as yet the measure of the people, and that the births
(as has been shown) are as five to eight, then eight-fifths of the births
is the number of the burials, where the year was not considerable for
extraordinary sickness or salubrity, and is the rule whereby to measure
the same. As for example, the medium of births in Dublin was 1,026, the
eight-fifths whereof is 1,641, but the real burials were 1,644; so as in
the said years they differed little from the 1,641, which was the
standard of health, and consequently the years 1680, 1674, and 1668 were
sickly years, more or less, as they exceeded the said number, 1,641; and
the rest were healthful years, more or less, as they fell short of the
same number. But the city was more or less populous, as the births
differed from the number 1,026, viz., populous in the years 1680, 1679,
1678, and 1668, for other causes of this difference in births are very
occult and uncertain.
7. What hath been said of Dublin, serves also for London.
8. It hath already been observed by the London bills that there are more
males than females. It is to be further noted, that in these six London
bills, also, there is not one instance either in the births or burials to
the contrary.
9. It hath been formerly observed that in the years wherein most die
fewest are born, and _vice versa_. The same may be further observed in
males and females, viz., when fewest males are born then most die: for
here the males died as twelve to eleven, which is above the mean
proportion of fourteen to thirteen, but were born but as nineteen to
eighteen, which is below the same.
_Observations upon the Table B_.
1. From the Table B it appears that the medium of the fifteen years’
burials (being 24,199) is 1,613, whereas the medium of the other six
years in the Table A was 1,644, and that the medium of the fifteen years’
births (being in all 14,765) is 984, whereas the medium of the said other
six years was 1,026. That is to say, there were both fewer births and
burials in these fifteen years than in the other six years, which is a
probable sign that at a medium there were fewer people also.
2. The medium of births for the fifteen years being 984, whereof
eight-fifths (being 1,576) is the standard of health for the said fifteen
years; and the triple of the said 1,576 being 4,728, is the standard for
each of the ternaries of the fifteen years within the said table.
3. That 2,952, the triple of 984 births, is for each ternary the
standard of people’s increase and decrease from the year 1666 to 1680
inclusive, viz., the people increased in the second ternary, and
decreased from the same in the third and fourth ternaries, but
re-increased in the fifth ternary beyond any other.
4. That the last ternary was withal very healthful, the burials being
but 4,624, viz., below 4,728, the standard.
5. That according to this proportion of increase, the housing of Dublin
have probably increased also.
_Observations upon the Table C_.
1. First, from the Table C it appears, 1. That the housing of Dublin is
such, as that there are not five hearths in each house one with another,
but nearer five than four.
2. That in St. Warburgh’s parish are near six hearths to a house. In
St. John’s five. In St. Michael’s above five. In St. Nicholas Within
above six. In Christ Church above seven. In St. James’s and St.
Katherine’s, and in St. Michan’s, not four. In St. Kevin’s about four.
3. That in St. James’s, St. Michan’s, St. Bride’s, St. Warburgh’s, St.
Andrew’s, St. Michael’s, and St. Patrick’s, all the christenings were but
550, and the burials 1,055, viz., near double; and that in the rest of
the parishes the christenings were five, and the burials seven, viz., as
457 to 634. Now whether the cause of this difference was negligence in
accounts, or the greaterness of the families, &c., is worth inquiring.
4. It is hard to say in what order (as to greatness) these parishes
ought to stand, some having most families, some most hearths, some most
births, and others most burials. Some parishes exceeding the rest in
two, others in three of the said four particulars, but none in all four.
Wherefore this table ranketh them according to the plurality of the said
four particulars wherein each excelleth the other.
5. The London observations reckon eight heads in each family, according
to which estimation, there are 32,000 souls in the 4,000 families of
Dublin, which is but half of what most men imagine, of which but about
one sixth part are able to bear arms, besides the royal regiment.
6. Without the knowledge of the true number of people, as a principle,
the whole scope and use of the keeping bills of births and burials is
impaired; wherefore by laborious conjectures and calculations to deduce
the number of people from the births and burials, may be ingenious, but
very preposterous.
7. If the number of families in Dublin be about 4,000, then ten men in
one week (at the charge of about £5 surveying eight families in an hour)
may directly, and without algebra, make an account of the whole people,
expressing their several ages, sex, marriages, title, trade, religion,
&c., and those who survey the hearths, or the constables or the parish
clerks (may, if required) do the same ex officio, and without other
charge, by the command of the chief governor, the diocesan, or the mayor.
8. The bills of London have since their beginning admitted several
alterations and improvements, and £8 or £10 per annum surcharge, would
make the bills of Dublin to exceed all others, and become an excellent
instrument of Government. To which purpose the forms for weekly,
quarterly, and yearly bills are humbly recommended, viz.
TABLE A—YEARLY BILLS OF MORTALITY FOR
LONDON DUBLIN LONDON
A.D. Burials Births Burials Births Male Female Male Female
1680 21,053 12,747 1,826 1,096 11,039 10,044 6,543 6,041
1679 21,730 12,288 1,397 1,061 11,154 10,576 6,247 6,041
1678 20,678 12,601 1,401 1,045 10,681 9,977 6,568 6,033
1674 21,201 11,851 2,106 942 11,000 10,196 6,113 5,738
1672 18,230 12,563 1,436 987 9,560 8,070 6,443 6,120
1668 17,278 11,633 1,699 1,026 9,111 8,167 6,073 5,566
120,170 73,683 9,865 6,157 62,545 57,030 37,992 35,697
The medium or 6th part whereof is part whereof is
20,028 12,280 1,644 1,026 10,424 9,505 6,332 5,949
TABLE B.—DUBLIN.
A.D. Burials. Births. In Ternaries of Years
1666 1,480 952 4,821 2,979
1667 1,642 1,001
1668 1,699 1,026
1669 1,666 1,000 5,353 3,070
1670 1,713 1,067
1671 1,974 1,003
1672 1,436 967 5,073 2,842
1673 1,531 933
1674 2,106 942
1675 1,578 823 4,328 2,672
1676 1,391 952
1677 1,359 897
1678 1,401 1,045 4,624 3,202
1679 1,397 1,061
1680 1,826 1,096
24,199 14,765 24,199 14,765
The medium or 15th part whereof is
1,613 984 1,613 984
TABLE C.
THE A.D. 1671. A.D., 1670–71–72 at a
PARISHES OF medium
DUBLIN
Families Hearths Births Burials
St. 661 2,399 161 290
Katherine’s
and St.
James’s
St. 490 2,348 207 262
Nicholas
Without
St. 656 2,301 127 221
Michan’s
St. 483 2,123 108 178
Andrew’s
with
Donnybrook
St. 416 1,989 70 100
Bridget’s
St. John’s 244 1,337 70 138
St. 267 1,650 54 103
Warburgh’s
St. 216 1,081 53 121
Audaen’s
St. 140 793 44 59
Michael’s
St. Kevin’s 106 433 64 133
St. 93 614 28 34
Nicholas
Within
St. 52 255 21 44
Patrick’s
Liberties
Christ 26 197 — 1
Church and
Trinity
College,
per
estimate
3,850 17,500 1,013 1,696
Houses 150 550
built
between
1671 and
1681, per
estimate
4,000 18,150
A WEEKLY BILL OF MORTALITY FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN, Ending the XXX day of
XXX 1681. {75}
PARISHES’ NAMES. Births Males Females Burials Under 16 Plague Small Pox Measles Spotted
years old Fever
St. Katharine’s and
St. James’s
St. Nicholas Without
St. Michan’s
St. Andrew’s with
Donnybrook
St. Bridget’s
St. John’s
St. Warburgh’s
St. Audaen’s
St. Michael’s
St. Kevin’s
St. Nicholas Within
St. Patrick’s
Liberties
Christ Church and
Trinity College
Totals
A QUARTERLY BILL OF MORTALITY, Beginning XXX and ending XXX for the City
of DUBLIN {76}
PARISHES’ NAMES. Births 1. Marriages 2. Buried under 16 Buried above 60 Measles, Consumption, Fever, Aged above 70 Infants under 2 All other
years olds years old Spotted Fever, Dropsy, Gout, Pleurisy, years old years old Casualties
Small Pox, Stone Quinsy, Sudden
Plague Death
St. Katharine’s
and St. James’s
St. Nicholas
Without
St. Michan’s
St. Andrew’s with
Donnybrook
St. Bridget’s
St. John’s
St. Warburgh’s
St. Audaen’s
St. Michael’s
St. Kevin’s
St. Nicholas
Within
St. Patrick’s
Liberties
Christ Church and
Trinity College
Totals
* * * * *
AN ACCOUNT OF THE PEOPLE OF DUBLIN FOR ONE YEAR, Ending the 24th of
March, 1681. {77}
PARISHES’ NAMES. Number of Whereof Married Persons of Protestants Papists Of all other Births Burials Marriages
person Persons religions
Males Females Under 16 Above 60 of above 16 years old
years old years old
St. Katharine’s and
St. James’s
St. Nicholas
Without
St. Michan’s
St. Andrew’s with
Donnybrook
St. Bridget’s
St. John’s
St. Warburgh’s
St. Audaen’s
St. Michael’s
St. Kevin’s
St. Nicholas Within
St. Patrick’s
Liberties
Christ Church and
Trinity College
Totals
CASUALTIES AND DISEASES.
Aged above 70 years Epilepsy and planet
Abortive and still-born Fever and ague
Childbed women Pleurisy
Convulsion Quinsy
Teeth Executed, murdered, drowned
Worms Plague and spotted fever
Gout and sciatica Griping of the guts
Stone Scouring, vomiting bleeding
Palsy Small pox
Consumption and French pox Measles
Dropsy and tympany Neither of all the other sorts
Rickets and livergrown
Headache and megrim
A POSTSCRIPT TO THE STATIONER.
WHEREAS you complain that these observations make no sufficient bulk, I
could answer you that I wish the bulk of all books were less; but do
nevertheless comply with you in adding what follows, viz.:
1. That the parishes of Dublin are very unequal; some having in them
above 600 families, and others under thirty.
2. That thirteen parishes are too few for 4,000 families; the middling
parishes of London containing 120 families; according to which rate there
should be about thirty-three parishes in Dublin.
3. It is said that there are 84,000 houses or families in London, which
is twenty-one times more than are in Dublin, and yet the births and
burials of London are but twelve times those of Dublin, which shows that
the inhabitants of Dublin are more crowded and straitened in their
housing than those of London; and consequently that to increase the
buildings of Dublin will make that city more conformable to London.
4. I shall also add some reasons for altering the present forms of the
Dublin bills of mortality, according to what hath been here
recommended—viz.:
1. We give the distinctions of males and females in the births only; for
that the burials must, at one time or another, be in the same proportion
with the births.
2. We do in the weekly and quarterly bills propose that notice be taken
in the burials of what numbers die above sixty and seventy, and what
under sixteen, six, and two years old, foreseeing good uses to be made of
that distinction.
3. We do in the yearly bill reduce the casualties to about twenty-four,
being such as may be discerned by common sense, and without art,
conceiving that more will but perplex and imbroil the account. And in
the quarterly bills we reduce the diseases to three heads—viz.,
contagious, acute, and chronical, applying this distinction to parishes,
in order to know how the different situation, soil, and way of living in
each parish doth dispose men to each of the said three species; and in
the weekly bills we take notice not only of the plague, but of the other
contagious diseases in each parish, that strangers and fearful persons
may thereby know how to dispose of themselves.
4. We mention the number of the people, as the fundamental term in all
our proportions; and without which all the rest will be almost fruitless.
5. We mention the number of marriages made in every quarter, and in
every year, as also the proportion which married persons bear to the
whole, expecting in such observations to read the improvement of the
nation.
6. As for religions, we reduce them to three—viz.: (1) those who have
the Pope of Rome for their head; (2) who are governed by the laws of
their country; (3) those who rely respectively upon their own private
judgments. Now, whether these distinctions should be taken notice of or
not, we do but faintly recommend, seeing many reasons _pro_ and _con_ for
the same; and, therefore, although we have mentioned it as a matter fit
to be considered, yet we humbly leave it to authority.
TWO ESSAYS IN POLITICAL ARITHMETIC,
_Concerning the People_, _Housing_, _Hospitals_, _&c._, _of London and
Paris_.
TO THE KING’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.
I DO presume, in a very small paper, to show your Majesty that your City
of London seems more considerable than the two best cities of the French
monarchy, and for aught I can find, greater than any other of the
universe, which because I can say without flattery, and by such
demonstration as your Majesty can examine, I humbly pray your Majesty to
accept from
Your Majesty’s
Most humble, loyal, and obedient subject,
WILLIAM PETTY.
AN ESSAY IN POLITICAL ARITHMETIC
_Tending to prove that London hath more people and housing than the
cities of Paris and Rouen put together_, _and is also more considerable
in several other respects_.
1. THE medium of the burials at London in the three last years—viz.,
1683, 1684, and 1685, wherein there was no extraordinary sickness, and
wherein the christenings do correspond in their ordinary proportions with
the burials and christenings of each year one with another, was 22,337,
and the like medium of burials for the three last Paris bills we could
procure—viz., for the years 1682, 1683, and 1684 (whereof the last as
appears by the christenings to have been very sickly), is 19,887.
2. The city of Bristol in England appears to be by good estimate of its
trade and customs as great as Rouen in France, and the city of Dublin in
Ireland appears to have more chimneys than Bristol, and consequently more
people, and the burials in Dublin were, A.D. 1682 (being a sickly year)
but 2,263.
3. Now the burials of Paris (being 19,887) being added to the burials of
Dublin (supposed more than at Rouen) being 2,263, makes but 22,150,
whereas the burials of London were 187 more, or 22,337, or as about 6 to
7.
4. If those who die unnecessarily, and by miscarriage in L’Hôtel Dieu in
Paris (being above 3,000), as hath been elsewhere shown, or any part
thereof, should be subtracted out of the Paris burials aforementioned,
then our assertion will be stronger, and more proportionable to what
follows concerning the housing of those cities, viz.:
5. There were burnt at London, A.D. 1666, above 13,000 houses, which
being but a fifth part of the whole, the whole number of houses in the
said year were above 65,000; and whereas the ordinary burials of London
have increased between the years 1666 and 1686, above one-third the total
of the houses at London, A.D. 1686, must be about 87,000, which A.D.
1682, appeared by account to have been 84,000.
6. Monsieur Moreri, the great French author of the late geographical
dictionaries, who makes Paris the greatest city in the world, doth reckon
but 50,000 houses in the same, and other authors and knowing men much
less; nor are there full 7,000 houses in the city of Dublin, so as if the
50,000 houses of Paris, and the 7,000 houses in the city of Dublin were
added together, the total is but 57,000 houses, whereas those of London
are 87,000 as aforesaid, or as 6 to 9.
7. As for the shipping and foreign commerce of London, the common sense
of all men doth judge it to be far greater than that of Paris and Rouen
put together.
8. As to the wealth and gain accruing to the inhabitants of London and
Paris by law-suits (or _La chicane_) I only say that the courts of London
extend to all England and Wales, and affect seven millions of people,
whereas those of Paris do not extend near so far. Moreover, there is no
palpable conspicuous argument at Paris for the number and wealth of
lawyers like the buildings and chambers in the two Temples, Lincoln’s
Inn, Gray’s Inn, Doctors’ Commons, and the seven other inns in which are
chimneys, which are to be seen at London, besides many lodgings, halls,
and offices, relating to the same.
9. As to the plentiful and easy living of the people we say,
(a.) That the people of Paris to those of London, being as about 6 to 7,
and the housing of the same as about 6 to 9, we infer that the people do
not live at London so close and crowded as at Paris, but can afford
themselves more room and liberty.
(b.) That at London the hospitals are better and more desirable than
those of Paris, for that in the best at Paris there die two out of
fifteen, whereas at London there die out of the worst scarce 2 out of 16,
and yet but a fiftieth part of the whole die out of the hospitals at
London, and two-fifths, or twenty times that proportion die out of the
Paris hospitals which are of the same kind; that is to say, the number of
those at London, who choose to lie sick in hospitals rather than in their
own houses, are to the like people of Paris as one to twenty; which shows
the greater poverty or want of means in the people of Paris than those of
London.
(c.) We infer from the premises, viz., the dying scarce two of sixteen
out of the London hospitals, and about two of fifteen in the best of
Paris, to say nothing of L’Hôtel Dieu, that either the physicians and
chirurgeons of London are better than those of Paris, or that the air of
London is more wholesome.
10. As for the other great cities of the world, if Paris were the
greatest we need say no more in behalf of London. As for Pekin in China,
we have no account fit to reason upon; nor is there anything in the
description of the two late voyages of the Chinese emperor from that city
into East and West Tartary, in the years 1682 and 1683, which can make us
recant what we have said concerning London. As for Delhi and Agra,
belonging to the Mogul, we find nothing against our position, but much to
show the vast numbers which attend that emperor in his business and
pleasures.
11. We shall conclude with Constantinople and Grand Cairo; as for
Constantinople it hath been said by one who endeavoured to show the
greatness of that city, and the greatness of the plague which raged in
it, that there died 1,500 per diem, without other circumstances; to which
we answer, that in the year 1665 there died in London 1,200 per diem, and
it hath been well proved that the Plague of London never carried away
above one-fifth of the people, whereas it is commonly believed that in
Constantinople, and other eastern cities, and even in Italy and Spain,
that the plague takes away two-fifths, one half, or more; wherefore where
1,200 is but one-fifth of the people it is probable that the number was
greater, than where 1,500 was two-fifths or one half, &c.
12. As for Grand Cairo it is reported, that 73,000 died in ten weeks, or
1,000 per diem, where note, that at Grand Cairo the plague comes and goes
away suddenly, and that the plague takes away two or three-fifths parts
of the people as aforesaid; so as 73,000 was probably the number of those
that died of the plague in one whole year at Grand Cairo, whereas at
London, A.D. 1665, 97,000 were brought to account to have died in that
year. Wherefore it is certain, that that city wherein 97,000 was but
one-fifth of the people, the number was greater than where 73,000 was
two-fifths or the half.
We therefore conclude, that London hath more people, housing, shipping,
and wealth, than Paris and Rouen put together; and for aught yet appears,
is more considerable than any other city in the universe, which was
propounded to be proved.
AN ESSAY IN POLITICAL ARITHMETIC,
_Tending to prove that in the hospital called L’Hôtel Dieu at Paris_,
_there die above 3,000 per annum by reason of ill accommodation_.
1. IT appears that A.D. 1678 there entered into the Hospital of La
Charité 2,647 souls, of which there died there within the said year 338,
which is above an eighth part of the said 2,647; and that in the same
year there entered into L’Hôtel Dieu 21,491, and that there died out of
that number 5,630, which is above one quarter, so as about half the said
5,630, being 2,815, seem to have died for want of as good usage and
accommodation as might have been had at La Charité.
2. Moreover, in the year 1679 there entered into La Charité 3,118, of
which there died 452, which is above a seventh part, and in the same year
there entered into L’Hôtel Dieu 28,635, of which there died 8,397; and in
both the said years 1678 and 1679 (being very different in their degrees
of mortality) there entered into L’Hôtel Dieu 28,635 and 2l,491—in all
50,126, the medium whereof is 25,063; and there died out of the same in
the said two years, 5,630 and 8,397—in all 14,027, the medium whereof is
7,013.
3. There entered in the said years into La Charité 2,647 and 3,118, in
all 5,765, the medium whereof is 2,882, whereof there died 338 and 452,
in all 790, the medium whereof is 395.
4. Now, if there died out of L’Hôtel Dieu 7,013 per annum, and that the
proportion of those that died out of L’Hôtel Dieu is double to those that
died out of La Charité (as by the above numbers it appears to be near
thereabouts), then it follows that half the said numbers of 7,013, being
3,506, did not die by natural necessity, but by the evil administration
of that hospital.
5. This conclusion seemed at the first sight very strange, and rather to
be some mistake or chance than a solid and real truth; but considering
the same matter as it appeared at London, we were more reconciled to the
belief of it, viz.:—
(_a_.) In the Hospital of St. Bartholomew in London, there was sent out
and cured in the year 1685, 1,764 persons, and there died out of the said
hospital 252. Moreover, there were sent out and cured out of St.
Thomas’s Hospital 1,523, and buried, 209—that is to say, there were cured
in both hospitals 3,287, and buried out of both hospitals 461, and
consequently cured and buried 3,748, of which number the 461 buried is
less than an eighth part; whereas at La Charité the part that died was
more than an eighth part; which shows that out of the most poor and
wretched hospitals of London there died fewer in proportion than out of
the best in Paris.
(_b_.) Furthermore, it hath been above shown that there died out of La
Charité at a medium 395 per annum, and 141 out of Les Incurables, making
in all 536; and that out of St. Bartholomew’s and St. Thomas’s Hospitals,
London, there died at a medium but 461, of which Les Incurables are part;
which shows that although there be more people in London than in Paris,
yet there went at London not so many people to hospitals as there did at
Paris, although the poorest hospitals at London were better than the best
at Paris; which shows that the poorest people at London have better
accommodation in their own houses than the best hospital of Paris
affordeth.
6. Having proved that there die about 3,506 persons at Paris
unnecessarily, to the damage of France, we come next to compute the value
of the said damage, and of the remedy thereof, as follows, viz., the
value of the said 3,506 at 60 livres sterling per head, being about the
value of Argier slaves (which is less than the intrinsic value of people
at Paris), the whole loss of the subjects of France in that hospital
seems to be 60 times 3,506 livres sterling per annum, viz., 210,360
livres sterling, equivalent to about 2,524,320 French livres.
7. It hath appeared that there came into L’Hôtel Dieu at a medium 25,063
per annum, or 2,089 _per mensem_, and that the whole stock of what
remained in the precedent months is at a medium about 2,108 (as may
appear by the third line of the Table No. 5, which shall be shortly
published), viz., the medium of months is 2,410 for the sickly year 1679,
whereunto 1,806 being added as the medium of months for the year 1678,
makes 4,216, the medium whereof is the 2,108 above mentioned; which
number being added to the 2,089 which entered each month, makes 4,197 for
the number of sick which are supposed to be always in L’Hôtel Dieu one
time with another.
8. Now, if 60 French livres per annum for each of the said 4,197 sick
persons were added to the present ordinary expense of that hospital
(amounting to an addition of 251,820 livres), it seems that so many lives
might be saved as are worth above ten times that sum, and this by doing a
manifest deed of charity to mankind.
_Memorandum_.—That A.D. 1685, the burials of London were 23,222, and
those of Amsterdam 6,245; from whence, and the difference of air, it is
probable that the people of London are quadruple to those of Amsterdam.
OBSERVATIONS UPON THE CITIES OF LONDON AND ROME.
1. THAT before the year 1630 the christenings at London exceeded the
burials of the same, but about the year 1655 they were scarce half; and
now about two-thirds.
2. Before the restoration of monarchy in England, A.D. 1660, the people
of Paris were more than those of London and Dublin put together, whereas
now, the people of London are more than those of Paris and Rome, or of
Paris and Rouen.
3. A.D. 1665 one fifth part of the then people of London, or 97,000,
died of the plague, and in the next year, 1666, 13,000 houses, or one
fifth part of all the housing of London, were burnt also.
4. At the birth of Christ old Rome was the greatest city of the world,
and London the greatest at the coronation of King James II., and near six
times as great as the present Rome, wherein are 119,000 souls besides
Jews.
5. In the years of King Charles II.’s death, and King James II.’s
coronation (which were neither of them remarkable for extraordinary
sickliness or healthfulness) the burials did wonderfully agree, viz.,
A.D. 1684, they were 23,202, and A.D. 1685, they were 23,222, the medium
whereof is 23,212. And the christenings did very wonderfully agree also,
having been A.D. 1684, 14,702, and A.D. 1685, 14,732, the medium whereof
is 14,716, which consistence was never seen before, the said number of
23,212 burials making the people of London to be 696,360, at the rate of
one dying per annum out of 30.
6. Since the great Fire of London, A.D. 1666, about 7 parts of 15 of the
present vast city hath been new built, and is with its people increased
near one half, and become equal to Paris and Rome put together, the one
being the seat of the great French Monarchy, and the other of the Papacy.
FIVE ESSAYS IN POLITICAL ARITHMETIC.
I. Objections from the city of Ray in Persia, and from Monsier Auzout,
against two former essays, answered, and that London hath as many people
as Paris, Rome, and Rouen put together.
II. A comparison between London and Paris in 14 particulars.
III. Proofs that at London, within its 134 parishes named in the bills
of mortality, there live about 696,000 people.
IV. An estimate of the people in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Venice, Rome,
Dublin, Bristol, and Rouen, with several observations upon the same.
V. Concerning Holland and the rest of the Seven United Provinces.
TO THE KING’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY
SIR,
YOUR MAJESTY having graciously accepted my two late essays, about the
cities and hospitals of London and Paris, as also my observations on Rome
and Rouen; I do (after six months’ waiting for what may be said against
my several doctrines by the able men of Europe) humbly present your
Majesty with a few other papers upon the same subject, to strengthen,
explain, and enlarge the former; hoping by such real arguments, better to
praise and magnify your Majesty, than by any other the most specious
words and eulogies that can be imagined by
Your Majesty’s
Most humble, loyal
And obedient subject,
WILLIAM PETTY.
THE FIRST ESSAY.
IT could not be expected that an assertion of London’s being bigger than
Paris and Rouen, or than Paris and Rome put together, and bigger than any
city of the world, should escape uncontradicted; and ’tis also expected
that I (if continuing in the same persuasion), should make some reply to
those contradictions. In order whereunto,
I begin with the ingenious author of the “_République des Lettres_,” who
saith that Rey in Persia is far bigger than London, for that in the sixth
century of Christianity (I suppose, A.D. 550 the middle of that century),
it had 15,000, or rather 44,000 mosques or Mahometan temples; to which I
reply, that I hope this objector is but in jest, for that Mahomet was not
born till about the year 570, and had no mosques till about 50 years
after.
In the next place I reply to the excellent Monsieur Auzout’s “Letters
from Rome,” who is content that London, Westminster, and Southwark may
have as many people as Paris and its suburbs; and but faintly denieth,
that all the housing within the bills may have almost as many people as
Paris and Rouen, but saith that several parishes inserted into these
bills are distant from, and not contiguous with London, and that Grant so
understood it.
To which (as his main if not his only objection) we answer:—(l) That the
London bills appear in Grant’s book to have been always, since the year
1636; as they now are; (2) That about fifty years since, three or four
parishes, formerly somewhat distant, were joined by interposed buildings
to the bulk of the city, and therefore then inserted into the bills; (3)
That since fifty years the whole buildings being more than double have
perfected that union, so as there is no house within the said bills from
which one may not call to some other house; (4) All this is confirmed by
authority of the king and city, and the custom of fifty years; (5) That
there are but three parishes under any colour of this exception which are
scarce one-fifty-second part of the whole.
Upon the whole matter, upon sight of Monsieur Auzout’s large letter,
dated the 19th of November, from Rome, I made remarks upon every
paragraph thereof, but suppressing it (because it looked like a war
against a worthy person with whom I intended none, whereas, in truth, it
was but a reconciling explication of some doubts) I have chosen the
shorter and softer way of answering Monsieur Auzout as followeth, viz.:—
Concerning the number of people in London, as also in Paris, Rouen, and
Rome, viz.:—
Monsieur Auzout allegeth an authentic account that there are 23,223
houses in Paris, wherein do live about eighty thousand families, and
therefore supposing three and a half families to live in every of the
said houses, one with another, the number of families will be 81,280; and
Monsier Auzout also allowing six heads to each family, the utmost number
of people in Paris, according to that opinion, will be 487,680.
The medium of the Paris burials was not denied by Monsier Auzout to be
19,887, nor that there died 3,506 unnecessarily out of the L’Hôtel Dieu;
wherefore deducting the said last number out of the former, the net
standard for burials at Paris will be 16,381, so, as the number of people
there, allowing but one to die out of thirty (which is more advantageous
to Paris than Monsieur Auzout’s opinion of one to die out of twenty-five)
the number of people at Paris will be 491,430 more than by Monsier
Auzout’s own last-mentioned account 491,430.
And the medium of the said two Paris accounts is 488,055.
The medium of the London burials is really 23,212, which, multiplied by
thirty (as hath been done for Paris), the number of the people there will
be 696,360.
The number of houses at London appears by the register to be 105,315,
whereunto adding one-tenth part of the same, or 10,315, as the least
number of double families that can be supposed in London, the total of
families will be 115,840, and allowing six heads for each family, as was
done for Paris, the total of the people at London will be 695,076.
The medium of the two last London accounts is 695,718.
So, as the people of Paris, according to the above 488,055.
account, is
Of Rouen, according to Monsieur Auzout’s utmost demands 80,000.
Of Rome, according to his own report thereof in a 125,000.
former letter
Total 693,055.
So as there are more people at London than at Paris, Rouen, and Rome by
2,663.
Memorandum.—That the parishes of Islington, Newington, and Hackney, for
which only there is any colour of non-contiguity, is not one-fifty-second
part of what is contained in the bills of mortality, and consequently
London, without the said three parishes, hath more people than Paris and
Rouen put together, by 114,284.
Which number of 114,284 is probably more people than any other city of
France contains.
THE SECOND ESSAY.
As for other comparisons of London with Paris, we farther repeat and
enlarge what hath been formerly said upon those matters, as followeth,
viz.:—
1. That forty per cent. die out of the hospitals at Paris where so many
die unnecessarily, and scarce one-twentieth of that proportion out of the
hospitals of London, which have been shown to be better than the best of
Paris.
2. That at Paris 81,280 kitchens are within less than 24,000
street-doors, which makes less cleanly and convenient way of living than
at London.
3. Where the number of christenings are near unto, or exceed the
burials, the people are poorer, having few servants and little equipage.
4. The river Thames is more pleasant and navigable than the Seine, and
its waters better and more wholesome; and the bridge of London is the
most considerable of all Europe.
5. The shipping and foreign trade of London is incomparably greater than
that at Paris and Rouen.
6. The lawyers’ chambers at London have 2,772 chimnies in them, and are
worth £140,000 sterling, or 3,000,000 of French livres, besides the
dwellings of their families elsewhere.
7. The air is more wholesome, for that at London scarce two of sixteen
die out of the worst hospitals, but at Paris above two of fifteen out of
the best. Moreover the burials of Paris are one-fifth part above and
below the medium, but at London not above one-twelfth, so as the
intemperies of the air at Paris is far greater than at London.
8. The fuel cheaper, and lies in less room, the coals being a wholesome
sulphurous bitumen.
9. All the most necessary sorts of victuals, and of fish, are cheaper,
and drinks of all sorts in greater variety and plenty.
10. The churches of London we leave to be judged by thinking that
nothing at Paris is so great as St. Paul’s was, and is like to be, nor so
beautiful as Henry the Seventh’s chapel.
11. On the other hand, it is probable, that there is more money in Paris
than London, if the public revenue (grossly speaking, quadruple to that
of England) be lodged there.
12. Paris hath not been for these last fifty years so much infested with
the plague as London; now that at London the plague (which between the
years 1591 and 1666 made five returns, viz., every fifteen years, at a
medium, and at each time carried away one-fifth of the people) hath not
been known for the 21 years last past, and there is a visible way by
God’s ordinary blessing to lessen the same by two-thirds when it next
appeareth.
13. As to the ground upon which Paris stands in respect of London, we
say, that if there be five stories or floors of housing at Paris, for
four at London, or in that proportion, then the 82,000 families of Paris
stand upon the equivalent of 65,000 London housteds, and if there be
115,000 families at London, and but 82,000 at Paris, then the proportion
of the London ground to that of Paris is as 115 to sixty-five, or as
twenty-three to thirteen.
14. Moreover Paris is said to be an oval of three English miles long and
two and a half broad, the area whereof contains but five and a half
square miles; but London is seven miles long, and one and a quarter broad
at a medium, which makes an area of near nine square miles, which
proportion of five and half to nine differs little from that of thirteen
to twenty-three.
15. Memorandum, that in Nero’s time, as Monsieur Chivreau reporteth,
there died 300,000 people of the plague in old Rome; now if there died
three of ten then and there, being a hotter country, as there dies two of
ten at London, the number of people at that time, was but a million,
whereas at London they are now about 700,000. Moreover the ground within
the walls of old Rome was a circle but of three miles diameter, whose
area is about seven square miles, and the suburbs scarce as much more, in
all about thirteen square miles, whereas the built ground at London is
about nine square miles as aforesaid; which two sorts of proportions
agree with each other, and consequently old Rome seems but to have been
half as big again as the present London, which we offer to antiquaries.
THE THIRD ESSAY.
PROOFS that the number of people in the 134 parishes of the London bills
of mortality, without reference to other cities, is about 696,000, viz.—
I know but three ways of finding the same.
1. By the houses, and families, and heads living in each.
2. By the number of burials in healthful times, and by the proportion of
those that live, to those that die.
3. By the number of those who die of the plague in pestilential years,
in proportion to those that escape.
_The First Way_.
To know the number of houses, I used three methods, viz.—
1. The number of houses which were burnt A.D. 1666, which by authentic
report was 13,200; next what proportion the people who died out of those
houses, bore to the whole; which I find A.D. 1686, to be but one seventh
part, but A.D. 1666 to be almost one-fifth, from whence I infer the whole
housing of London A.D. 1666 to have been 66,000, then finding the burials
A.D. 1666 to be to those of 1686 as 3 to 4,I pitch upon 88,000 to be the
number of housing A.D. 1686.
2. Those who have been employed in making the general map of London, set
forth in the year 1682, told me that in that year they had found above
84,000 houses to be in London, wherefore A.D. 1686, or in four years
more, there might be one-tenth or 8,400 houses more (London doubling in
forty years) so as the whole, A.D. 1686 might be 92,400.
3. I found that A.D. 1685, there were 29,325 hearths in Dublin, and
6,400 houses, and in London 388 thousand hearths, whereby there must have
been at that rate 87,000 houses in London. Moreover I found that in
Bristol there were in the same year 16,752 hearth; and 5,307 houses, and
in London 388,000 hearths as aforesaid; at which rate there must have
been 123,000 houses in London, and at a medium between Dublin and Bristol
proportions 105,000 houses.
Lastly, by certificate from the hearth office, I find the houses within
the bills of mortality to be 105,315.
Having thus found the houses, I proceed next to the number of families in
them, and first I thought that if there were three or four families or
kitchens in every house of Paris, there might be two families in
one-tenth of the housing of London; unto which supposition, the common
opinion of several friends doth concur with my own conjectures.
As to the number of heads in each family, I stick to Grant’s observation
in page — of his fifth edition, that in tradesmen of London’s families
there be eight heads one with another, in families of higher ranks, above
ten, and in the poorest near live, according to which proportions, I had
upon another occasion pitched the medium of heads in all the families of
England to be six and one-third, but quitting the fraction in this case,
I agree with Monsieur Auzout for six.
To conclude, the houses of London being 105,315 and the addition of
double families 10,531 more, in all 115,846; I multiplied the same by
six, which produced 695,076 for the number of the people.
_The Second Way_.
I found that the years 1684 and 1685, being next each other, and both
healthful, did wonderfully agree in their burials, viz., 1684 they were
23,202, and A.D. 1685 23,222, the medium whereof is 23,212; moreover that
the christenings 1684 were 14,702, and those A.D. 1685 were 14,730,
wherefore I multiplied the medium of burials 23,212 by 30, supposing that
one dies out of 30 at London, which made the number of people 696,360
souls.
Now to prove that one dies out of 30 at London or thereabouts, I say—
1. That Grant in the — page of his fifth edition, affirmeth from
observation, that 3 died of 88 per annum which is near the same
proportion.
2. I found that out of healthful places, and out of adult persons, there
dies much fewer, as but one out of 50 among our parliament men, and that
the kings of England having reigned 24 years one with another, probably
lived above 30 years each.
3. Grant, page — hath shown that but about one of 20 die per annum out
of young children under 10 years old, and Monsieur Auzout thinks that but
1 of 40 die at Rome, out of the greater proportion of adult persons
there, wherefore we still stick as a medium to the number 30.
4. In nine country parishes lying in several parts of England, I find
that but one of 37 hath died per annum, or 311 out of 11,507, wherefore
till I see another round number, grounded upon many observations, nearer
than 30, I hope to have done pretty well in multiplying our burials by 30
to find the number of the people, the product being 696,360, and what we
find by the families they are 695,076, as aforesaid.
_The Third Way_.
It was proved by Grant, that one-fifth of the people died of the plague,
but A.D. 1665 there died of the plague near 98,000 persons, the quintuple
whereof is 490,000 as the number of people in the year 1665, whereunto
adding above one-third, as the increase between 1665 and 1686, the total
is 653,000, agreeing well enough with the other two computations above
mentioned.
Wherefore let the proportion of 1 to 30 continue till a better be put in
its place.
_Memorandum_. That two or three hundred new houses would make a
contiguity of two or three other great parishes, with the 134 already
mentioned in the bills of mortality: and that an oval wall of about
twenty miles in compass would enclose the same, and all the shipping at
Deptford and Blackwall, and would also fence in 20,000 acres of land, and
lay the foundation or designation of several vast advantages to the
owners, and inhabitants of that ground, as also to the whole nation and
government.
THE FOURTH ESSAY.
_Concerning the proportions of People in the eight eminent Cities of
Christendom undernamed_, viz.:—
1. WE have by the number of burials in healthful years, and by the
proportion of the living to those who die yearly, as also by the number
of houses and families within the 134 parishes called London, and the
estimate of the heads in each, pitched upon the number of people in that
city to be at a medium 695,718.
2. We have, by allowing that at Paris above 80,000 families, viz.,
81,280, do live in 23,223 houses, 32 palaces, and 38 colleges, or that
there are 81,280 kitchens within less than 24,000 street doors; as also
by allowing 30 heads for every one that died necessarily there; we have
pitched upon the number of people there at a medium to be 488,055, nor
have we restrained them to 300,000, by allowing with Monsieur Auzout 6
heads for each of Moreri’s 50,000 houses or families.
3. To Amsterdam we allow 187,350 souls, viz., 30 times the number of
their burials, which were 6,245 in the year 1685.
4. To Venice we allow 134,000 souls, as found there in a special account
taken by authority, about ten years since, when the city abounded with
such as returned from Candia, then surrendered to the Turks.
5. To Rome we allow 119,000 Christians, and 6,000 Jews, in all 125,000
souls, according to an account sent thither of the same by Monsieur
Auzout.
6. To Dublin we allow (as to Amsterdam) 30 times its burials, the medium
whereof for the last two years is 2,303, viz., 69,090 souls.
7. As to Bristol, we say that if the 6,400 houses of Dublin give 69,090
people, that the 5,307 houses of Bristol must give above 56,000 people.
Moreover, if the 29,325 hearths of Dublin give 69,090 people, the 16,752
hearths of Bristol must give about 40,000; but the medium of 56,000 and
40,000 is 48,000.
8. As for Rouen, we have no help, but Monsieur Auzout’s fancy of 80,000
souls to be in that city, and the conjecture of knowing men that Rouen is
between the one-seventh and one-eighth part of Paris, and also that it is
by a third bigger than Bristol; by all which, we estimate, till farther
light, that Rouen hath at most but 66,000 people in it.
Now it may be wondered why we mentioned Rouen at all, having had so
little knowledge of it; whereunto we answer, that we did not think it
just to compare London with Paris, as to shipping and foreign trade,
without adding Rouen thereunto, Rouen being to Paris as that part of
London which is below the bridge, is to what is above it.
All which we heartily submit to the correction of the curious and candid,
in the meantime observing according to the gross numbers under-mentioned.
London 696,000
Paris 488,000
Amsterdam 187,000
Venice 134,000
Rome 125,000
Dublin 69,000
Bristol 48,000
Rouen 66,000
_Observations on the said Eight Cities_.
1. That the people of
Paris being 488,000
Rome 125,000
Rouen 66,000
do make in all but 679,000
or 17,000 less than the 696,000 of London alone.
2. That the people of the two English cities and emporiums—viz., of
London, 696,000, and Bristol, 48,000—do make 744,000, or more than
In Paris 488,000
Amsterdam 187,090
Rouen 66,000
Being in all 741,000
3. That the same two English cities seem equivalent
To Paris, which hath 488,000 souls.
Rouen 66,000
Lyons 100,000
Toulouse 90,000
In all 744,000
If there be any error in these conjectures concerning these cities of
France, we hope they will be mended by those whom we hear to be now at
work upon that matter.
4. That the King of England’s three cities, viz.:
King’s Cities Exceed
London 696,000 Paris 488,000
Dublin 69,000 Amsterdam 187,000
Bristol 48,000 Venice 134,000
In all 813,000 Being but 809,000
5. That of the four great emporiums, London, Amsterdam, Venice, and
Rouen, London alone is near double to the other three, viz., above 7 to
4.
Amsterdam 187,000
Venice 134,000
Rouen 66,000 387,000
× 2
774,000 London 696,000
6. That London, for aught appears, is the greatest and most considerable
city of the world, but manifestly the greatest emporium.
When these assertions have passed the examen of the critics, we shall
make another essay, showing how to apply those truths to the honour and
profit of the King and Kingdom of England.
THE FIFTH ESSAY.
_Concerning Holland and the rest of the United Provinces_.
SINCE the close of this paper, it hath been objected from Holland, that
what hath been said of the number of houses and people in London is not
like to be true; for that if it were, then London would be the two-thirds
of the whole Province of Holland. To which is answered, that London is
the two-thirds of all Holland, and more, that province having not
1,044,000 inhabitants (whereof 696,000 is the two-thirds), nor above
800,000, as we have credibly and often heard. For suppose Amsterdam
hath—as we have elsewhere noted—187,000, the seven next great cities at
30,000 each, one with another, 210,000, the ten next at 15,000 each
150,000, the ten smallest at 6,000 each 60,000—in all, the twenty-eight
walled cities and towns of Holland 607,000; in the dorps and villages
193,000, which is about one head for every four acres of land; whereas in
England there is eight acres for every head, without the cities and
market-towns.
Now, suppose London, having 116,000 families, should have seven heads in
each—the medium between MM. Auzout’s and Grant’s reckonings—the total of
the people would be 812,000; or if we reckon that there dies one out of
thirty-four—the medium between thirty and thirty-seven above
mentioned—the total of the people would be thirty-four times 23,212,
viz., 789,208, the medium between which number and the above 812,000 is
800,604, somewhat exceeding 800,000, the supposed number of Holland.
Furthermore, I say that upon former searches into the peopling of the
world, I never found that in any country—not in China itself—there was
more than one man to every English acre of land: many territories passing
for well-peopled where there is but one man for ten such acres. I found
by measuring Holland and West Frisia (_alias_ North Holland) upon the
best maps, that it contained but as many such acres as London doth of
people, viz., about 696,000 acres. I therefore venture to pronounce
(till better informed) that the people of London are as many as those of
Holland, or at least above two-thirds of the same, which is enough to
disable the objection above mentioned; nor is there any need to strain up
London from 696,000 to 800,000, though competent reasons have been given
to that purpose, and though the author of the excellent map of London,
set forth A.D. 1682, reckoned the people thereof (as by the said map
appears) to be 1,200,000, even when he thought the houses of the same to
be but 85,000.
The worthy person who makes this objection in the same letter also saith—
1. That the province of Holland hath as many people as the other six
united provinces together, and as the whole kingdom of England, and
double to the city of Paris and its suburbs; that is to say, 2,000,000
souls. 2. He says that in London and Amsterdam, and other trading
cities, there are ten heads to every family, and that in Amsterdam there
are not 22,000 families. 3. He excepteth against the register alleged
by Monsieur Auzout, which makes 23,223 houses and above 80,000 families
to be in Paris; as also against the register alleged by Petty, making
105,315 houses to be in London, with a tenth part of the same to be of
families more than houses; and probably will except against the register
of 1,163 houses to be in all England, that number giving, at six and
one-third heads to each family, about 7,000,000 people, upon all which we
remark as follows, viz.:—
1. That if Paris doth contain but 488,000 souls, that then all Holland
containeth but the double of that number, or 976,000, wherefore London,
containing 696,000 souls, hath above two-thirds of all Holland by 46,000.
2. If Paris containeth half as many people as there are in all England,
it must contain 3,500,000 souls, or above seven times 488,000; and
because there do not die 20,000 per annum out of Paris, there must die
but one out of 175; whereas Monsieur Auzout thinks that there dies one
out of 25, and there must live 149 heads in every house of Paris
mentioned in the register, but there must be scarce two heads in every
house of England, all which we think fit to be reconsidered.
I must, as an Englishman, take notice of one point more, which is, that
these assertions do reflect upon the empire of England, for that it is
said that England hath but 2,000,000 inhabitants, and it might as well
have been added, that Scotland and Ireland, with the Islands of Man,
Jersey, and Guernsey, have but two-fifths of the same number, or 800,000
more, or that all the King of England’s subjects in Europe are but
2,800,000 souls, whereas he saith that the subjects of the seven united
provinces are 4,000,000. To which we answer that the subjects of the
said seven provinces are, by this objector’s own showing, but the
quadruple of Paris, or 1,932,000 souls, Paris containing but 488,000, as
afore hath been proved, and we do here affirm that England hath 7,000,000
people, and that Scotland, Ireland, with the Islands of Man, Jersey, and
Guernsey, hath two-fifths of the said number, or 2,800,000 more, in all
9,800,000; whereas by the objector’s doctrine, if the seven provinces
have 1,932,000 people, the King of England’s territories should have but
seven-tenths of the same number, viz., 1,351,000, whereas we say
9,800,000, as aforesaid, which difference is so gross as that it deserves
to be thus reflected upon.
To conclude, we expect from the concerned critics of the world that they
would prove—
1. That Holland, and West Frisia, and the twenty-eight towns and cities
thereof, hath more people than London alone.
2. That any three of the best cities of France, any two of all
Christendom, or any one of the world, hath the same, or better housing,
and more foreign trade than London, even in the year that King James the
Second came to the empire thereof.
OF THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.
_Founded upon the Calculations of Gregory King_, _Lancaster Herald_, _and
forming part of_ “_An Essay upon the Probable Methods of making a People
gainers in the Balance of Trade_.” _Published in 1699_.
THE writer of these papers has seen the natural and political
observations and conclusions upon the state and condition of England by
Gregory King, Esq., Lancaster Herald, in manuscript. The calculations
therein contained are very accurate, and more perhaps to be relied upon
than anything that has been ever done of the like kind. This skilful and
laborious gentleman has taken the right course to form his several
schemes about the numbers of the people, for besides many different ways
of working, he has very carefully inspected the poll-books, and the
distinctions made by those acts, and the produce in many of the
respective polls, going everywhere by reasonable and discreet mediums:
besides which pains, he has made observations of the very facts in
particular towns and places, from which he has been able to judge and
conclude more safely of others, so that he seems to have looked further
into this mystery than any other person.
With his permission, we shall offer to the public such of his
computations as may be of use, and enlighten in the matter before us.
He lays down that if the first peopling of England was by a colony or
colonies, consisting of a number between 100 and 1,000 people (which
seems probable), such colony or colonies might be brought over between
the year of the world 2400 and 2600, viz., about 800 or 900 years after
the Flood, and 1,400 or 1,500 years before the birth of Christ, at which
time the world might have about 1,000,000 families, and 4,000,000 or
5,000,000 people.
From which hypothesis it will follow by an orderly series of increase—
That when the Romans invaded England fifty-three years before Christ’s
time, the kingdom might have about 360,000 people, and at Christ’s birth
about 400,000.
That at the Norman Conquest, A.D. 1066, the kingdom might contain
somewhat above 2,000,000.
That A.D. 1260, or about 200 years after the Norman Conquest, it might
contain about 2,750,000 people, or half the present number: so that the
people of England may have doubled in about 435 years last past.
That in all probability the next doubling will be in about 600 years to
come, viz., by the year 2300, at which time it may have about 11,000,000
people, and the kingdom containing about 39,000,000 of acres, there will
be then about three acres and a half per head.
That the increase of the kingdom for every hundred years of the last
preceding term of doubling, and the subsequent term of doubling, may have
been and in all probability may be, according to the following scheme:—
Anno Domini. Number of people. Increase every hundred
years.
1300 2,800,000
1400 3,300,000 440,000.
1500 3,840,000 540,000.
1600 4,620,000 780,000.
1700 5,500,000 880,000.
1800 6,420,000 920,000.
1900 7,350,000 930,000.
2000 8,280,000 930,000.
2100 9,205,000 925,000.
2200 10,115,000 910,000.
2300 11,000,000 885,000.
Whereby it may appear that the increase of the kingdom being 880,000
people in the last hundred years, and 920,000 in the next succeeding
hundred years, the annual increase at this time may be about 9,000 souls
per annum.
But whereas the yearly births of the kingdom are 190,000 souls.
about 1 in 28.95, or
And the yearly burials 1 in 32.35 or 170,000 souls.
Whereby the yearly increase would be 20,000 souls.
It is to be noted— Per ann.
1. That the allowance for 4,000
plagues and great mortalities
may come to at a medium
2. Foreign or civil wars at a 3,500
medium
3. The sea constantly employing 2,500
about 40,000, may precipitate
the death of about
4. The plantations (over and 1,000
above the accession of
foreigners) may carry away
11,000 per
annum.
Whereby the net annual increase may be but 9,000 souls.
That of these 20,000 souls, which would be the annual increase of the
kingdom by procreation, were it not for the before-mentioned abatements.
The country increases annually by procreation 20,000 souls.
The cities and towns, exclusive of London, by 2,000 souls.
procreation
But London and the bills of mortality decrease 2,000 souls.
annually
So that London requires a supply of 2,000 souls per annum to keep it from
decreasing, besides a further supply of about 3,000 per annum for its
increase at this time. In all 5,000, or above a half of the kingdom’s
net increase.
Mr. King further observes that by the assessments on marriages, births,
and burials, and the collectors’ returns thereupon, and by the parish
registers, it appears that the proportions of marriages, births, and
burials are according to the following scheme
_Vide_ Scheme A.
Whence it may be observed that in 10,000 coexisting persons there are 71
or 72 marriages in the country, producing 343 children; 78 marriages in
towns producing 351 children; 94 marriages in London, producing 376
children.
Whereby it follows—
1. That though each marriage in London produces fewer people than in the
country, yet London in general having a greater proportion of breeders,
is more prolific than the other great towns, and the great towns are more
prolific than the country.
2. That if the people of London of all ages were as long-lived as those
in the country, London would increase in people much faster _pro rata_
than the country.
3. That the reasons why each marriage in London produces fewer children
than the country marriages seem to be—
(1) From the more frequent fornications and adulteries.
(2) From a greater luxury and intemperance.
(3) From a greater intentness on business.
(4) From the unhealthfulness of the coal smoke.
(5) From a greater inequality of age between the husbands and wives.
(6) From the husbands and wives not living so long as in the country.
He further observes, accounting the people to be 5,500,000, that the said
five millions and a half (including the transitory people and vagrants)
appear by the assessments on marriages, births, and burials, to bear the
following proportions in relation to males and females, and other
distinctions of the people, viz.:—
SCHEME A.
People. Annual Producing
Marriages. children
In all. each
530,000 London and 1 in 106 5,000 4.0
bills of
mortality
870,000 The cities 1 in 128 6,800 4.5
and market
towns
4,100,000 The 1 in 141 29,200 4.8
villages
and hamlets
5,500,000 1 in 134 41,000 4.64
* * * * *
Annual Births. Annual Burials.
In all. In all.
London and 1 in 26½ 20,000 1 in 24.1 22,000
bills of
mortality
The cities 1 in 28½ 30,600 1 in 30.4 28,600
and market
towns
The 1 in 29.4 29,200 1 in 34.4 119,400
villages
and hamlets
1 in 28.95 190,000 1 in 32.35 170,000
_Vide_ Scheme B.
So that the number of communicants is in all 3,260,000 souls; and the
number of fighting men between sixteen and sixty is 1,308,000.
SCHEME B.
Males. Males. Females. Both.
Females.
In London 10 to 13 230,000 300,000 530,000
and bills
of
mortality
In the 8 to 9 410,000 460,000 870,000
other
cities and
market-
towns
In the 100 to 99 2,060,000 2,040,000 4,100,000
villages
and hamlets
27 to 28 2,700,000 2,800,000 5,500,000
_That as to other distinctions they appear by the said assessments to
bear these proportions_.
People. Males. Females.
Husbands and 34½% 1,900,000 950,000 950,000
wives at above
Widowers at 1½% 90,000 90,000
above
Widows at about 4½% 240,000 240,000
Children at 45% 2,500,000 1,300,000 1,200,000
above
Servants at 10½% 560,000 260,000 300,000
about
Sojourners and 4% 210,000 100,000 110,000
single persons
100% 5,500,000 2,700,000 2,800,000
_And that the different proportions in each of the said articles between
London_, _the great towns_, _and the villages_, _may the better appear_,
_he has formed the following scheme_:—
London and Bills of The other Cities and The Villages and
Mortality. Souls. great Towns. Souls. Hamlets. Souls.
Husbands and Wives 37% 196,100 36% 313,200 34% 1,394,000
Widowers 2% 10,600 2% 17,400 1½% 61,500
Widows 7% 37,100 6% 52,200 4½% 184,500
Children 33% 174,900 40% 348,000 47% 1,927,000
Servants 13% 68,900 11% 95,700 10% 410,000
Sojourners 8% 42,400 5% 43,500 3% 123,000
100% 530,000 100% 870,000 100% 4,100,000
SCHEME B (_continued_).
_He further observes_, _supposing the people to be 5,500,000_, _that the
yearly births of the Kingdom may be 190,000_, _and that the several ages
of the people may be as follows_:
In all. Males. Females.
Those under 1 years old 170,000 88,500 81,500
Those under 5 years old 820,000 413,300 406,700
Those under 10 years old 1,520,000 762,900 757,100
Those above 16 years old 3,260,000 1,578,000 1,682,000
Those above 21 years old 2,700,000 1,300,000 1,400,000
Those above 25 years old 2,400,000 1,152,000 1,248,000
Those above 60 years old 600,000 270,000 330,000
Those under 16 years old 2,240,000
Those above 16 years old 3,260,000
Total of the people 5,500,000
That the bachelors are about 28 per cent. of the whole, whereof those
under twenty-five years are 25½ per cent., and those above twenty-five
years are 2½ per cent.
That the maidens are about 28½ per cent. of the whole.
Whereof those under 25 years are 26½ per cent.
And those above 25 years are 2 per cent.
That the males and females in the kingdom in general are aged, one with
another, 27 years and a half.
That in the kingdom in general there is near as many people living under
20 years of age as there is above 20, whereof half of the males are under
19, and one half of the females are under 21 years.
That the ages of the people, according to their several distinctions, are
as follows, viz.:—
_Vide_ Scheme C.
Having thus stated the numbers of the people, he gives a scheme of the
income and expense of the several families of England, calculated for the
year 1688.
SCHEME C.
At a Medium
The husbands 43 years 17¼ per cent., 742 years.
are aged apiece, which, makes
at
The wives 40 17¼ 690
The widowers 56 1½ 84
The widows 60 4½ 270
The children 12 45 540
The servants 27 10½ 284
The sojourners 35 4 140
At a medium 27½ 100 2,750
_Vide_ Scheme D.
Mr. King’s modesty has been so far overruled as to suffer us to
communicate these his excellent computations, which we can the more
safely commend, having examined them very carefully, tried them by some
little operations of our own upon the same subject, and compared them
with the schemes of other persons, who take pleasure in the like studies.
What he says concerning the number of the people to be 5,500,000 is no
positive assertion, nor shall we pretend anywhere to determine in that
matter; what he lays down is by way of hypothesis, that supposing the
inhabitants of England to have been, A.D. 1300, 2,860,000 heads, by the
orderly series of increase allowed of by all writers they may probably be
about A.D. 1700, 5,500,000 heads; but if they were A.D. 1300 either less
or more, the case must proportionably alter; for as to his allowances for
plagues, great mortalities, civil wars, the sea, and the plantations,
they seem very reasonable, and not well to be controverted.
Upon these schemes of Mr. King we shall make several remarks, though the
text deserves much a better comment.
SCHEME D.—A SCHEME OF THE INCOME AND EXPENSE OF THE SEVERAL FAMILIES OF
ENGLAND, CALCULATED FOR THE YEAR 1688. {148}
Number of Families. RANKS, DEGREES, Heads per Family.
TITLES, AND
QUALIFICATIONS.
160 Temporal Lords 40
26 Spiritual Lords 20
800 Baronets 16
600 Knights 13
3,000 Esquires 10
12,000 Gentlemen 8
5,000 Persons in greater 8
offices and places
5,000 Persons in lesser 6
offices and places
2,000 Eminent merchants and 8
traders by sea
8,000 Lesser merchants and 6
traders by sea
10,000 Persons in the law 7
2,000 Eminent clergymen 6
8,000 Lesser clergymen 5
40,000 Freeholders of the 7
better sort
120,000 Freeholders of the 5½
lesser sort
150,000 Farmers 5
15,000 Persons in liberal 5
arts and sciences
50,000 Shopkeepers and 4½
tradesmen
60,000 Artisans and 4
handicrafts
5,000 Naval officers 4
4,000 Military officers 4
500,586 5⅓
50,000 Common seamen 3
364,000 Labouring people and 3½
out-servants
400,000 Cottagers and paupers 3¼
35,000 Common soldiers 2
849,000 Vagrants, as gipsies, 3¼
thieves, beggars, &c.
500,586 Increasing the wealth 5⅓
of the kingdom
849,000 Decreasing the wealth 3¼
of the kingdom
1,349,586 Net totals 4 1/13
* * * * *
Number of Persons. Yearly Income per. Family. Yearly Income in Yearly Income per. Hd. Yearly Expense per Hd. Yearly Yearly
general. Increase per. Incr. in
Hd. General.
£ s. £ £ s. £ s. d. £ s. d. £
6,400 3,200 0 512,000 80 0 70 0 0 10 0 0 64,000
520 1,300 0 33,800 65 0 45 0 0 20 0 0 10,400
12,800 880 0 704,000 55 0 49 0 0 6 0 0 76,800
7,800 650 0 390,000 50 0 45 0 0 5 0 0 39,000
30,000 450 0 1,200,000 45 0 41 0 0 4 0 0 120,000
96,000 280 0 2,880,000 35 0 32 0 0 3 0 0 288,000
40,000 240 0 1,200,000 30 0 26 0 0 4 0 0 160,000
30,000 120 0 600,000 20 0 17 0 0 3 0 0 90,000
16,000 400 0 800,000 50 0 37 0 0 13 0 0 208,000
48,000 198 0 1,600,000 33 0 27 0 0 6 0 0 288,000
70,000 154 0 1,540,000 22 0 18 0 0 4 0 0 280,000
12,000 72 0 144,000 12 0 10 0 0 2 0 0 24,000
40,000 50 0 400,000 10 0 9 4 0 0 16 0 32,000
280,000 91 0 3,640,000 13 0 11 15 0 1 5 0 350,000
660,000 55 0 6,600,000 10 0 9 10 0 0 10 0 330,000
750,000 42 10 6,375,000 8 10 8 5 0 0 5 0 187,500
75,000 60 0 900,000 12 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 75,000
225,000 45 0 2,250,000 10 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 225,000
240,000 38 0 2,280,000 9 10 9 0 0 0 10 0 120,000
20,000 80 0 400,000 20 0 18 0 0 2 0 0 40,000
16,000 60 0 240,000 15 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 16,000
2,675,520 68 18 34,488,800 12 18 11 15 4 1 2 8 3,023,700
Decrease. Decrease.
150,000 20 0 1,000,000 7 0 7 10 0 0 10 0 75,000
1,275,000 15 0 5,460,000 4 10 4 12 0 0 2 0 127,500
1,300,000 6 10 2,000,000 2 0 2 5 0 0 5 0 325,000
70,000 14 0 490,000 7 0 7 10 0 0 10 0 35,000
2,795,000 10 10 8,950,000 3 5 3 9 0 0 4 0 562,500
30,000 60,000 2 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 60,000
So the General Account is
2,675,520 68 18 34,488,800 12 18 11 15 4 1 2 8 3,023,700
2,825,000 10 10 9,010,000 3 3 3 7 6 0 4 6 622,500
5,500,520 32 5 43,491,800 7 18 7 9 3 0 8 9 2,401,200
The people being the first matter of power and wealth, by whose labour
and industry a nation must be gainers in the balance, their increase or
decrease must be carefully observed by any government that designs to
thrive; that is, their increase must be promoted by good conduct and
wholesome laws, and if they have been decreased by war, or any other
accident, the breach is to be made up as soon as possible, for it is a
maim in the body politic affecting all its parts.
Almost all countries in the world have been more or less populous, as
liberty and property have been there well or ill secured. The first
constitution of Rome was no ill-founded government, a kingly power
limited by laws; and the people increased so fast, that, from a small
beginning, in the reign of their sixth king were they able to send out an
army of 80,000 men. And in the time of the commonwealth, in that
invasion which the Gauls made upon Italy, not long before Hannibal came
thither, they were grown so numerous, as that their troops consisted of
700,000 foot and 70,000 horse; it is true their allies were comprehended
in this number, but the ordinary people fit to bear arms being mustered
in Rome and Campania, amounted to 250,000 foot and 23,000 horse.
Nothing, therefore, can more contribute to the rendering England populous
and strong than to have liberty upon a right footing, and our legal
constitution firmly preserved. A nation may be as well called free under
a limited kingship as in a commonwealth, and it is to this good form of
our government that we partly owe that doubling of the people which has
probably happened here in the 435 years last past. And if the ambition
of some, and the mercenary temper of others, should bring us at any time
to alter our constitution, and to give up our ancient rights, we shall
find our numbers diminish visibly and fast. For liberty encourages
procreation, and not only keeps our own inhabitants among us, but invites
strangers to come and live under the shelter of our laws.
The Romans, indeed, made use of an adventitious help to enlarge their
city, which was by incorporating foreign cities and nations into their
commonwealth; but this way is not without its mischiefs. For the
strangers in Rome by degrees had grown so numerous, and to have so great
a vote in the councils, that the whole Government began to totter, and
decline from its old to its new inhabitants, which Fabius the censor
observing, he applied a remedy in time by reducing all the new citizens
into four tribes, that being contracted into so narrow a space, they
might not have so malignant an influence upon the city.
An Act of general naturalisation would likewise probably increase our
numbers very fast, and repair what loss we may have suffered in our
people by the late war. It is a matter that has been very warmly
contended for by many good patriots; but peradventure it carries also its
danger with it, which perhaps would have the less influence by this
expedient, namely, if an Act of Parliament were made, that no heads of
families hereafter to be naturalised for the first generation, should
have votes in any of our elections. But as the case stands, it seems
against the nature of right government that strangers (who may be spies,
and who may have an interest opposite to that of England, and who at best
ever join in one link of obsequiousness to the Ministers) should be
suffered to intermeddle in that important business of sending members to
Parliament. From their sons indeed there is less to fear, who by birth
and nature may come to have the same interest and inclinations as the
natives.
And though the expedient of Fabius Maximus, to contract the strangers
into four tribes, might be reasonable where the affairs of a whole empire
were transacted by magistrates chosen in one city, yet the same policy
may not hold good in England; foreigners cannot influence elections here
by being dispersed about in the several counties of the kingdom, where
they can never come to have any considerable strength. But some time or
other they may endanger the government by being suffered to remain, such
vast numbers of them here in London where they inhabit altogether, at
least 30,000 persons in two quarters of the town, without intermarrying
with the English, or learning our language, by which means for several
years to come they are in a way still to continue foreigners, and perhaps
may have a foreign interest and foreign inclinations; to permit this
cannot be advisable or safe. It may therefore be proper to limit any new
Acts of naturalisation with such restrictions as may make the accession
of strangers not dangerous to the public.
An accession of strangers, well regulated, may add to our strength and
numbers; but then it must be composed of labouring men, artificers,
merchants, and other rich men, and not of foreign soldiers, since such
fright and drive away from a nation more people than their troops can
well consist of: for if it has been ever seen that men abound most where
there is most freedom (China excepted, whose climate excels all others,
and where the exercise of the tyranny is mild and easy) it must follow
that people will in time desert those countries whose best flower is
their liberties, if those liberties are thought precarious or in danger.
That foreign soldiers are dangerous to liberty, we may produce examples
from all countries and all ages; but we shall instance only one, because
it is eminent above all the rest.
The Carthaginians, in their wars, did very much use mercenary and foreign
troops; and when the peace was made between them and the Romans, after a
long dispute for the dominion of Sicily, they brought their army home to
be paid and disbanded, which Gesco, their General, had the charge of
embarking, who did order all his part with great dexterity and wisdom.
But the State of Carthage wanting money to clear arrears, and satisfy the
troops, was forced to keep them up longer than was designed. The army
consisted of Gauls, Ligurians, Baleareans, and Greeks. At first they
were insolent in their quarters in Carthage, and were prevailed upon to
remove to Sicca, where they were to remain and expect their pay. There
they grew presently corrupted with ease and pleasure, and fell into
mutinies and disorder, and to making extravagant demands of pay and
gratuities; and in a rage, with their arms in their hands, they marched
20,000 of them towards Carthage, encamping within fifteen miles of the
city; and chose Spendius and Matho, two profligate wretches, for their
leaders, and imprisoned Gesco, who was deputed to them from the
commonwealth. Afterwards they caused almost all the Africans, their
tributaries, to revolt; they grew in a short time to be 70,000 strong;
they fought several battles with Hanno and Hamilcar Barcas. During these
transactions, the mercenaries that were in garrison in Sardinia mutinied
likewise, murdering their commander and all the Carthaginians; while
Spendius and Matho, to render their accomplices more desperate, put Gesco
to a cruel death, presuming afterwards to lay siege to Carthage itself.
They met with a shock indeed at Prion, where 40,000 of them were
slaughtered; but soon after this battle, in another they took one of the
Carthaginian generals prisoner, whom they fixed to a cross, crucifying
thirty of the principal senators round about him. Spendius and Matho
were at last taken, the one crucified and the other tormented to death:
but the war lasted three years and near four months with excessive
cruelty; in which the State of Carthage lost several battles, and was
often brought within a hair’s-breadth of utter ruin.
If so great a commonwealth as Carthage, though assisted at that time by
Hiero, King of Syracuse, and by the Romans, ran the hazard of losing
their empire, city, and liberties, by the insurrection of a handful of
mercenaries, whose first strength was but 20,000 men; it should be a
warning to all free nations how they suffer armies so composed to be
among them, and it should frighten a wise State from desiring such an
increase of people as may be had by the bringing over foreign soldiers.
Indeed, all armies whatsoever, if they are over-large, tend to the
dispeopling of a country, of which our neighbour nation is a sufficient
proof, where in one of the best climates in Europe men are wanting to
till the ground. For children do not proceed from the intemperate
pleasures taken loosely and at random, but from a regular way of living,
where the father of the family desires to rear up and provide for the
offspring he shall beget.
Securing the liberties of a nation may be laid down as a fundamental for
increasing the numbers of its people; but there are other polities
thereunto conducing which no wise State has ever neglected.
No race of men did multiply so fast as the Jews, which may be attributed
chiefly to the wisdom of Moses their Lawgiver, in contriving to promote
the state of marriage.
The Romans had the same care, paying no respect to a man childless by his
own fault, and giving great immunities and privileges, both in the city
and provinces, to those who had such and such a number of children.
Encouragements of the like kind are also given in France to such as
enrich the commonwealth by a large issue.
But we in England have taken another course, laying a fine upon the
marriage bed, which seems small to those who only contemplate the pomp
and wealth round about them, and in their view; but they who look into
all the different ranks of men are well satisfied that this duty on
marriages and births is a very grievous burden upon the poorer sort,
whose numbers compose the strength and wealth of any nation. This tax
was introduced by the necessity of affairs. It is difficult to say what
may be the event of a new thing; but if we are to take measures from past
wisdom, which exempted prolific families from public duties, we should
not lay impositions upon those who find it hard enough to maintain
themselves. If this tax be such a weight upon the poor as to discourage
marriage and hinder propagation, which seems the truth, no doubt it ought
to be abolished; and at a convenient time we ought to change it for some
other duty, if there were only this single reason, that it is so directly
opposite to the polity of all ages and all countries.
In order to have hands to carry on labour and manufactures, which must
make us gainers in the balance of trade, we ought not to deter, but
rather invite men to marry, which is to be done by privileges and
exemptions for such a number of children, and by denying certain offices
of trust and dignities to all unmarried persons; and where it is once
made a fashion among those of the better sort, it will quickly obtain
with the lower degree.
Mr. King, in his scheme (for which he has as authentic grounds as perhaps
the matter is capable of) lays down that the annual marriages of England
are about 41,000, which is one marriage out of every 134 persons. Upon
which, we observe, that this is not a due proportion, considering how few
of our adult males (in comparison with other countries) perish by war or
any other accident; from whence may be inferred that our polity is some
way or other defective, or the marriages would bear a nearer proportion
with the gross number of our people; for which defect, if a remedy can be
found, there will be so much more strength added to the kingdom.
From the books of assessment on births, marriages, &c., by the nearest
view he can make, he divides the 5,500,000 people into 2,700,000 males
and 2,800,000 females; from whence (considering the females exceed the
males in number, and considering that the men marry later than women, and
that many of the males are of necessity absent in the wars, at sea, and
upon other business) it follows that a large proportion of the females
remain unmarried, though at an adult age, which is a dead loss to the
nation, every birth being as so much certain treasure, upon which account
such laws must be for the public good, as induce all men to marry whose
circumstances permit it.
From his division of the people it may be likewise observed, that the
near proportion there is between the males and females (which is said to
hold also in other places) is an argument (and the strongest that can be
produced) against polygamy, and the increase of mankind which some think
might be from thence expected; for if Nature had intended to one man a
plurality of wives, she would have ordered a great many more female
births than male, her designments being always right and wise.
The securing the parish for bastard children is become so small a
punishment and so easily compounded, that it very much hinders marriage.
The Dutch compel men of all ranks to marry the woman whom they have got
with child, and perhaps it would tend to the further peopling of England
if the common people here, under such a certain degree, were condemned by
some new law to suffer the same penalty.
A country that makes provision to increase in inhabitants, whose
situation is good, and whose people have a genius adapted to trade, will
never fail to be gainers in the balance, provided the labour and industry
of their people be well managed and carefully directed.
The more any man contemplates these matters the more he will come to be
of opinion, that England is capable of being rendered one of the
strongest nations, and the richest spot of ground in Europe.
It is not extent of territory that makes a country powerful, but numbers
of men well employed, convenient ports, a good navy, and a soil producing
all sort of commodities. The materials for all this we have, and so
improvable, that if we did but second the gifts of Nature with our own
industry we should soon arrive to a pitch of greatness that would put us
at least upon an equal footing with any of our neighbours.
If we had the complement of men our land can maintain and nourish; if we
had as much trade as our stock and knowledge in sea affairs is capable of
embracing; if we had such a naval strength as a trade so extended would
easily produce; and, if we had those stores and that wealth which is the
certain result of a large and well-governed traffic, what human strength
could hurt or invade us? On the contrary, should we not be in a posture
not only to resist but to give the law to others?
Our neighbouring commonwealth has not in territory above 8,000,000 acres,
and perhaps not much above 2,200,000 people, and yet what a figure have
they made in Europe for these last 100 years? What wars have they
maintained? What forces have they resisted? and to what a height of
power are they now come, and all by good order and wise government?
They are liable to frequent invasions; they labour under the
inconvenience and danger of bad ports; they consume immense sums every
year to defend their land against the sea; all which difficulties they
have subdued by an unwearied industry.
We are fenced by nature against foreign enemies, our ports are safe, we
fear no irruptions of the sea, our land territory at home is at least
39,000,000 acres. We have in all likelihood not less than 5,500,000
people. What a nation might we then become, if all these advantages were
thoroughly improved, and if a right application were made of all this
strength and of these numbers?
They who apprehend the immoderate growth of any prince or State may,
perhaps, succeed by beginning first, and by attempting to pull down such
a dangerous neighbour, but very often their good designs are
disappointed. In all appearance they proceed more safely, who, under
such a fear, make themselves strong and powerful at home. And this was
the course which Philip, King of Macedon, the father of Perseus, took,
when he thought to be invaded by the Romans.
The greatness of Rome gave Carthage very anxious thoughts, and it rather
seems that they entered into the second Punic War more for fear the
Romans should have the universal empire, than out of any ambition to lord
it themselves over the whole world. Their design was virtuous, and
peradventure wise to endeavour at some early interruption to a rival that
grew so fast. However, we see they miscarried, though their armies were
led by Hannibal. But fortune which had determined the dominion of the
earth for Rome, did, perhaps, lead them into the fatal counsel of passing
the Eber contrary to the articles of peace concluded with Asdrubal, and
of attacking Saguntum before they had sufficiently recovered of the
wounds they had suffered in the wars about Sicily, Sardinia, and with
their own rebels. If the high courage of Hannibal had not driven the
commonwealth into a new war while it was yet faint and weak, and if they
had been suffered to pursue their victories in Spain, and to get firm
footing in that rich, warlike, and then populous country, very probably
in a few years they might have been a more equal match for the Roman
people. It is true, if the Romans had endeavoured, at the conquest of
Spain, and if they had disturbed the Carthaginians in that country, the
war must have been unavoidable, because it was evident in that age, and
will be apparent in the times we live in, that whatever foreign power,
already grown great, can add to its dominion the possession of Spain,
will stand fair for universal empire.
But unless some such cogent reason of state, as is here instanced,
intervene, in all appearance the best way for a nation that apprehends
the growing power of any neighbour is to fortify itself within; we do not
mean by land armies, which rather debilitate than strengthen a country,
but by potent navies, by thrift in the public treasure, care of the
people’s trade, and all the other honest and useful arts of peace.
By such an improvement of our native strength, agreeable to the laws and
to the temper of a free nation, England without doubt may be brought to
so good a posture and condition of defending itself, as not to apprehend
any neighbour jealous of its strength or envious of its greatness.
And to this end we open these schemes, that a wise Government under which
we live, not having any designs to become arbitrary, may see what
materials they have to work upon, and how far our native wealth is able
to second their good intentions of preserving us a rich and a free
people.
Having said something of the number of our inhabitants, we shall proceed
to discourse of their different degrees and ranks, and to examine who are
a burden and who are a profit to the public, for by how much every part
and member of the commonwealth can be made useful to the whole, by so
much a nation will be more and more a gainer in this balance of trade
which we are to treat of.
Mr. King, from the assessments on births and marriages, and from the
polls, has formed the scheme here inserted, of the ranks, degrees, titles
and qualifications of the people. He has done it so judiciously, and
upon such grounds, that is well worth the careful perusal of any curious
person, from thence we shall make some observations in order to put our
present matter in a clearer light.
First, this scheme detects their error, who in the calculation they frame
contemplate nothing but the wealth and plenty they see in rich cities and
great towns, and from thence make a judgment of the kingdom’s remaining
part, and from this view conclude that taxes and payments to the public
do mostly arise from the gentry and better sort, by which measures they
neither contrive their imposition aright, nor are they able to give a
true estimate what it shall produce; but when we have divided the
inhabitants of England into their proper classes, it will appear that the
nobility and gentry are but a small part of the whole body of the people.
Believing that taxes fell chiefly upon the better sort, they care not
what they lay, as thinking they will not be felt; but when they come to
be levied, they either fall short, and so run the public into an immense
debt, or they light so heavily upon the poorer sort, as to occasion
insufferable clamours; and they, whose proper business it was to contrive
these matters better have been so unskilful, that the legislative power
has been more than once compelled for the peoples’ ease to give new
funds, instead of others that had been ill projected.
This may be generally said, that all duties whatsoever upon the
consumption of a large produce, fall with the greatest weight upon the
common sort, so that such as think in new duties that they chiefly tax
the rich will find themselves quite mistaken; for either their fund must
yield little, or it must arise from the whole body of the people, of
which the richer sort are but a small proportion.
And though war, and national debts and engagements, might heretofore very
rationally plead for excises upon our home consumption, yet now there is
a peace, it is the concern of every man that loves his country to proceed
warily in laying new ones, and to get off those which are already laid as
fast as ever he can. High customs and high excises both together are
incompatible, either of them alone are to be endured, but to have them
co-exist is suffered in no well-governed nation. If materials of foreign
growth were at an easy rate, a high price might be the better borne in
things of our own product, but to have both dear at once (and by reason
of the duties laid upon them) is ruinous to the inferior rank of men, and
this ought to weigh more with us, when we consider that even of the
common people a subdivision is to be made, of which one part subsist from
their own havings, arts, labour, and industry; and the other part subsist
a little from their own labour, but chiefly from the help and charity of
the rank that is above them. For according to Mr. King’s scheme—
The nobility and gentry, with their families and retainers, the persons
in offices, merchants, persons in the law, the clergy, freeholders,
farmers, persons in sciences and liberal arts, shopkeepers, and
tradesmen, handicrafts, men, naval officers, with the families and
dependants upon all these altogether, make up the number of 2,675,520
heads.
The common seamen, common soldiers, labouring people, and out-servants,
cottagers, paupers, and their families, with the vagrants, make up the
number of 2,825,000 heads.
In all 5,500,520 heads.
So that here seems a majority of the people, whose chief dependence and
subsistence is from the other part, which majority is much greater, in
respect of the number of families, because 500,000 families contribute to
the support of 850,000 families. In contemplation of which, great care
should be taken not to lay new duties upon the home consumption, unless
upon the extremest necessities of the State; for though such impositions
cannot be said to fall directly upon the lower rank, whose poverty
hinders them from consuming such materials (though there are few excises
to which the meanest person does not pay something), yet indirectly, and
by unavoidable consequences, they are rather more affected by high duties
upon our home-consumption than the wealthier degree of people, and so we
shall find the case to be, if we look carefully into all the distinct
ranks of men there enumerated.
First, as to the nobility and gentry, they must of necessity retrench
their families and expenses, if excessive impositions are laid upon all
sorts of materials for consumption, from whence follows, that the degree
below them of merchants, shopkeepers, tradesmen, and artisans, must want
employment.
Secondly, as to the manufactures, high excises in time of peace are
utterly destructive to that principal part of England’s wealth; for if
malt, coals, salt, leather, and other things, bear a great price, the
wages of servants, workmen, and artificers, will consequently rise, for
the income must bear some proportion with the expense; and if such as set
the poor to work find wages for labour or manufacture advance upon them,
they must rise in the price of their commodity, or they cannot live, all
which would signify little, if nothing but our own dealings among one
another were thereby affected; but it has a consequence far more
pernicious in relation to our foreign trade, for it is the exportation of
our own product that must make England rich; to be gainers in the balance
of trade, we must carry out of our own product what will purchase the
things of foreign growth that are needful for our own consumption, with
some overplus either in bullion or goods to be sold in other countries,
which overplus is the profit a nation makes by trade, and it is more or
less according to the natural frugality of the people that export, or as
from the low price of labour and manufacture they can afford the
commodity cheap, and at a rate not to be undersold in foreign markets.
The Dutch, whose labour and manufactures are dear by reason of home
excises, can notwithstanding sell cheap abroad, because this disadvantage
they labour under is balanced by the parsimonious temper of their people;
but in England, where this frugality is hardly to be introduced, if the
duties upon our home consumption are so large as to raise considerably
the price of labour and manufacture, all our commodities for exportation
must by degrees so advance in the prime value, that they cannot be sold
at a rate which will give them vent in foreign markets, and we must be
everywhere undersold by our wiser neighbours. But the consequence of
such duties in times of peace will fall most heavily upon our woollen
manufactures, of which most have more value from the workmanship than the
material; and if the price of this workmanship be enhanced, it will in a
short course of time put a necessity upon those we deal with of setting
up manufactures of their own, such as they can, or of buying goods of the
like kind and use from nations that can afford them cheaper. And in this
point we are to consider, that the bulk of our woollen exports does not
consist in draperies made of the fine wool, peculiar to our soil, but is
composed of coarse broad cloths, such as Yorkshire cloths, kerseys, which
make a great part of our exports, and may be, and are made of a coarser
wool, which is to be had in other countries. So that we are not singly
to value ourselves upon the material, but also upon the manufacture,
which we should make as easy as we can, by not laying over-heavy burdens
upon the manufacturer. And our woollen goods being two-thirds of our
foreign exports, it ought to be the chief object of the public care, if
we expect to be gainers in the balance of trade, which is what we hunt
after in these inquiries.
Thirdly, as to the lower rank of all, which we compute at 2,825,000
heads, a majority of the whole people, their principal subsistence is
upon the degrees above them, and if those are rendered uneasy these must
share in the calamity, but even of this inferior sort no small proportion
contribute largely to excises, as labourers and out-servants, which
likewise affect the common seamen, who must thereupon raise their wages
or they will not have wherewithal to keep their families left at home,
and the high wages of seamen is another burden upon our foreign traffic.
As to the cottagers, who are about a fifth part of the whole people, some
duties reach even them, as those upon malt, leather, and salt, but not
much because of their slender consumption, but if the gentry, upon whose
woods and gleanings they live, and who employ them in day labour, and if
the manufacturers, for whom they card and spin, are overburdened with
duties, they cannot afford to give them so much for their labour and
handiwork, nor to yield them those other reliefs which are their
principal subsistence, for want of which these miserable wretches must
perish with cold and hunger.
Thus we see excises either directly or indirectly fall upon the whole
body of the people, but we do not take notice of these matters as
receding from our former opinion. On the contrary, we still think them
the most easy and equal way of taxing a nation, and perhaps it is
demonstrable that if we had fallen into this method at the beginning of
the war of raising the year’s expense within the year by excises, England
had not been now indebted so many millions, but what was advisable under
such a necessity and danger is not to be pursued in times of peace,
especially in a country depending so much upon trade and manufactures.
Our study now ought to be how those debts may be speedily cleared off,
for which these new revenues are the funds, that trade may again move
freely as it did heretofore, without such a heavy clog; but this point we
shall more amply handle when we come to speak of our payments to the
public.
Mr. King divides the whole body of the people into two principal classes,
viz.:—
Increasing the wealth of the kingdom 2,675,520 heads.
Decreasing the wealth of the kingdom 2,825,000 heads.
By which he means that the first class of the people from land, arts, and
industry maintain themselves, and add every year something to the
nation’s general stock, and besides this, out of their superfluity,
contribute every year so much to the maintenance of others.
That of the second class some partly maintain themselves by labour (as
the heads of the cottage families), but that the rest, as most of the
wives and children of these, sick and impotent people, idle beggars and
vagrants, are nourished at the cost of others, and are a yearly burden to
the public, consuming annually so much as would be otherwise added to the
nation’s general stock.
The bodies of men are, without doubt, the most valuable treasure of a
country, and in their sphere the ordinary people are as serviceable to
the commonwealth as the rich if they are employed in honest labour and
useful arts, and such being more in number do more contribute to increase
the nation’s wealth than the higher rank.
But a country may be populous and yet poor (as were the ancient Gauls and
Scythians), so that numbers, unless they are well employed, make the body
politic big but unwieldy, strong but unactive, as to any uses of good
government.
Theirs is a wrong opinion who think all mouths profit a country that
consume its produce, and it may be more truly affirmed, that he who does
not some way serve the commonwealth, either by being employed or by
employing others, is not only a useless, but a hurtful member to it.
As it is charity, and what we indeed owe to human kind, to make provision
for the aged, the lame, the sick, blind, and impotent, so it is a justice
we owe to the commonwealth not to suffer such as have health, and who
might maintain themselves, to be drones and live upon the labour of
others.
The bulk of such as are a burden to the public consists in the cottagers
and paupers, beggars in great cities and towns, and vagrants.
Upon a survey of the hearth books, made in Michaelmas, 1685, it was found
that of the 1,300,000 houses in the whole kingdom, those of one chimney
amounted to 554,631, but some of these having land about them, in all our
calculations, we have computed the cottagers but at 500,000 families; but
of these, a large number may get their own livelihood, and are no charge
to the parish, for which reason Mr. King very judiciously computes his
cottagers and paupers, decreasing the wealth of the nation but at 400,000
families, in which account he includes the poor-houses in cities, towns,
and villages, besides which he reckons 30,000 vagrants, and all these
together to make up 1,330,000 heads.
This is a very great proportion of the people to be a burden upon the
other part, and is a weight upon the land interest, of which the landed
gentlemen must certainly be very sensible.
If this vast body of men, instead of being expensive, could be rendered
beneficial to the commonwealth, it were a work, no doubt, highly to be
promoted by all who love their country.
It seems evident, to such as have considered these matters, and who have
observed how they are ordered in nations under a good polity, that the
number of such who through age or impotence stand in real need of relief,
is but small and might be maintained for very little, and that the poor
rates are swelled to the extravagant degree we now see them at by two
sorts of people, one of which, by reason of our slack administration, is
suffered to remain in sloth, and the other, through a defect in our
constitution, continue in wretched poverty for want of employment, though
willing enough to undertake it.
All this seems capable of a remedy, the laws may be armed against
voluntary idleness, so as to prevent it, and a way may probably be found
out to set those to work who are desirous to support themselves by their
own labour; and if this could be brought about, it would not only put a
stop to the course of that vice which is the consequence of an idle life,
but it would greatly tend to enrich the commonwealth, for if the industry
of not half the people maintain in some degree the other part, and,
besides, in times of peace did add every year near two million and a half
to the general stock of England, to what pitch of wealth and greatness
might we not be brought, if one limb were not suffered to draw away the
nourishment of the other, and if all the members of the body politic were
rendered useful to it?
Nature, in her contrivances, has made every part of a living creature
either for ornament or use; the same should be in a politic institution
rightly governed.
It may be laid down for an undeniable truth, that where all work nobody
will want, and to promote this would be a greater charity and more
meritorious than to build hospitals, which very often are but so many
monuments of ill-gotten riches attended with late repentance.
To make as many as possible of these 1,330,000 persons (whereof not above
330,000 are children too young to work) who now live chiefly upon others
get themselves a large share of their maintenance would be the opening a
new vein of treasure of some millions sterling per annum; it would be a
present ease to every particular man of substance, and a lasting benefit
to the whole body of the kingdom, for it would not only nourish but
increase the numbers of the people, of which many thousands perish every
year by those diseases contracted under a slothful poverty.
Our laws relating to the poor are very numerous, and this matter has
employed the care of every age for a long time, though but with little
success, partly through the ill execution, and partly through some defect
in the very laws.
The corruptions of mankind are grown so great that, now-a-days, laws are
not much observed which do not in a manner execute themselves; of this
nature are those laws which relate to bringing in the Prince’s revenue,
which never fail to be put in execution, because the people must pay, and
the Prince will be paid; but where only one part of the constitution, the
people, are immediately concerned, as in laws relating to the poor, the
highways, assizes, and other civil economy, and good order in the state,
those are but slenderly regarded.
The public good being therefore, very often, not a motive strong enough
to engage the magistrate to perform his duty, lawgivers have many times
fortified their laws with penalties, wherein private persons may have a
profit, thereby to stir up the people to put the laws in execution.
In countries depraved nothing proceeds well wherein particular men do not
one way or other find their account; and rather than a public good should
not go on at all, without doubt, it is better to give private men some
interest to set it forward.
For which reason it may be worth the consideration of such as study the
prosperity and welfare of England, whether this great engine of
maintaining the poor, and finding them work and employment, may not be
put in motion by giving some body of undertakers a reasonable gain to put
the machine upon its wheels.
In order to which, we shall here insert a proposal delivered to the House
of Commons last session of Parliament, for the better maintaining the
impotent, and employing and setting to work the other poor of this
kingdom.
In matters of this nature, it is always good to have some model or plan
laid down, which thinking men may contemplate, alter, and correct, as
they see occasion; and the writer of these papers does rather choose to
offer this scheme, because he is satisfied it was composed by a gentleman
of great abilities, and who has made both the poor rates, and their
number, more his study than any other person in the nation. The proposal
is as follows
_A Scheme for Setting the Poor to Work_.
First, that such persons as shall subscribe and pay the sum of £300,000
as a stock for and towards the better maintaining the impotent poor, and
for buying commodities and materials to employ and set at work the other
poor, be incorporated and made one body politic, &c. By the name of the
Governor and Company for Maintaining and Employing the Poor of this
Kingdom.
By all former propositions, it was intended that the parishes should
advance several years’ rates to raise a stock, but by this proposal the
experiment is to be made by private persons at their risk; and £300,000
may be judged a very good stock, which, added to the poor rates for a
certain number of years, will be a very good fund for buying commodities
and materials for a million of money at any time. This subscription
ought to be free for everybody, and if the sum were subscribed in the
several counties of England and Wales, in proportion to their poor rates,
or the monthly assessment, it would be most convenient; and provision may
be made that no person shall transfer his interest but to one of the same
county, which will keep the interest there during the term; and as to its
being one Corporation, it is presumed this will be most beneficial to the
public. For first, all disputes on removes, which are very chargeable
and burthensome, will be at an end—this proposal intending, that wherever
the poor are, they shall be maintained or employed. Secondly, it will
prevent one county which shall be diligent, imposing on their neighbours
who may be negligent, or getting away their manufactures from them.
Thirdly, in case of fire, plague, or loss of manufacture, the stock of
one county may not be sufficient to support the places where such
calamities may happen; and it is necessary the whole body should support
every particular member, so that hereby there will be a general care to
administer to every place according to their necessities.
Secondly, that the said Corporation be established for the term of
one-and-twenty years.
The Corporation ought to be established for one-and-twenty years, or
otherwise it cannot have the benefit the law gives in case of infants,
which is their service for their education; besides, it will be some
years before a matter of this nature can be brought into practice.
Thirdly, that the said sum of £300,000 be paid in, and laid out for the
purposes aforesaid, to remain as a stock for and during the said term of
one-and-twenty years.
The subscription ought to be taken at the passing of the Act, but the
Corporation to be left at liberty to begin either the Michaelmas or the
Lady Day after, as they shall think fit. And XXX per cent. to be paid at
the subscribing to persons appointed for that purpose, and the remainder
before they begin to act; but so as £300,000 shall be always in stock
during the term, notwithstanding any dividends or other disposition: and
an account thereof to be exhibited twice in every year upon oath, before
the Lord Chancellor for the time being.
Fourthly, that the said corporation do by themselves, or agents in every
parish of England, from and after the XXX day of XXX during the said term
of one-and-twenty years, provide for the real impotent poor good and
sufficient maintenance and reception, as good or better than hath at any
time within the space of XXX years before the said XXX day of XXX been
provided or allowed to such impotent poor, and so shall continue to
provide for such impotent poor, and what other growing impotent poor
shall happen in the said parish during the said term.
By impotent poor is to be understood all infants and old and decrepid
persons not able to work; also persons who by sickness or any accident
are for the time unable to labour for themselves or families; and all
persons (not being fit for labour) who were usually relieved by the money
raised for the use of the poor; they shall have maintenance, as good or
better, as within XXX years they used to have.
This does not directly determine what that shall be, nor is it possible,
by reason a shilling in one county is as much as two in another; but it
will be the interest of the Corporation that such poor be well provided
for, by reason the contrary will occasion all the complaints or clamour
that probably can be made against the Corporation.
Fifthly, that the Corporation do provide (as well for all such poor which
on the said XXX day of XXX shall be on the poor books, as for what other
growing poor shall happen in the said term who are or shall be able to
labour or do any work) sufficient labour and work proper for such persons
to be employed in. And that provision shall be made for such labouring
persons according to their labour, so as such provision doth not exceed
three-fourth parts as much as any other person would have paid for such
labour. And in case they are not employed and set to work, then such
persons shall, until materials or labour be provided for them, be
maintained as impotent poor; but so as such persons who shall hereafter
enter themselves on the poor’s book, being able to labour, shall not quit
the service of the corporation, without leave, for the space of six
months.
The Corporation are to provide materials and labour for all that can
work, and to make provision for them not exceeding three-fourth parts as
much as any other person would give for such labour. For example, if
another person would give one of these a shilling, the Corporation ought
to give but ninepence. And the reason is plain, first, because the
Corporation will be obliged to maintain them and their families in all
exigences, which others are not obliged to do, and consequently they
ought not to allow so much as others. Secondly, in case any persons able
to labour, shall come to the Corporation, when their agents are not
prepared with materials to employ them, by this proposal they are to
allow them full provision as impotent poor, until they find them work,
which is entirely in favour of the poor. Thirdly, it is neither
reasonable nor possible for the Corporation to provide materials upon
every occasion, for such persons as shall be entered with them, unless
they can be secure of such persons to work up those materials; besides,
without this provision, all the labouring people of England will play
fast and loose between their employers and the Corporation, for as they
are disobliged by one, they will run to the other, and so neither shall
be sure of them.
Sixthly, that no impotent poor shall be removed out of the parish where
they dwell, but upon notice in writing given to the churchwardens or
overseers of the said parish, to what place of provision he or she is
removed.
It is judged the best method to provide for the impotent poor in houses
prepared for that purpose, where proper provision may be made for
several, with all necessaries of care and maintenance. So that in some
places one house will serve the impotent poor of several parishes, in
which case the parish ought to know where to resort, to see if good
provision be made for them.
Seventhly, that in case provision be not made for the poor of each
parish, in manner as aforesaid (upon due notice given to the agents of
the Corporation) the said parish may order their poor to be maintained,
and deduct the sum by them expended out of the next payments to be made
to the said corporation by the said parish.
In case any accident happens in a parish, either by sickness, fall,
casualty of fire, or other ways; and that the agent of the Corporation is
not present to provide for them, or having notice doth not immediately do
it, the parish may do it, and deduct so much out of the next payment; but
there must be provision made for the notice, and in what time the
Corporation shall provide for them.
Eighthly, that the said Corporation shall have and receive for the said
one-and-twenty years, that is to say, from every parish yearly, so much
as such parish paid in any one year, to be computed by a medium of seven
years; namely, from the 25th of March, 1690, to the 25th of March 1697,
and to be paid half-yearly; and besides, shall receive the benefit of the
revenues of all donations given to any parish, or which shall be given
during the said term, and all forfeitures which the law gives to the use
of the poor; and to all other sums which were usually collected by the
parish, for the maintenance of the poor.
Whatever was raised for or applied to the use of the poor, ought to be
paid over to the Corporation; and where there are any donations for
maintaining the poor, it will answer the design of the donor, by reason
there will be better provision for the maintenance of the poor than ever;
and if that maintenance be so good, as to induce further charities, no
doubt the Corporation ought to be entitled to them. But there are two
objections to this article; first that to make a medium by a time of war
is unreasonable. Secondly, to continue the whole tax for one-and-twenty
years, does not seem to give any benefit to the kingdom in that time. To
the first, it is true, we have a peace, but trade is lower now than at
any time during the war, and the charge of the poor greater; and when
trade will mend is very uncertain. To the second, it is very plain, that
although the charge may be the same to a parish in the total, yet it will
be less to particular persons, because those who before received alms,
will now be enabled to be contributors; but besides, the turning so many
hundred thousand pounds a year (which in a manner have hitherto been
applied only to support idleness) into industry; and the employing so
many other idle vagrants and sturdy beggars, with the product of their
labour, will altogether be a present benefit to the lands of England, as
well in the rents as in the value; and further the accidental charities
in the streets and at doors, is, by a very modest computation, over and
above the poor rates, at least £300,000 per annum, which will be entirely
saved by this proposal, and the persons set at work; which is a further
consideration for its being well received, since the Corporation are not
allowed anything for this service.
The greater the encouragement is, the better the work will be performed;
and it will become the wisdom of the parliament in what they do, to make
it effectual; for should such an undertaking as this prove ineffectual,
instead of remedying, it will increase the mischief.
Ninthly, that all the laws made for the provision of the poor, and for
punishing idle vagrant persons, be repealed, and one law made to continue
such parts as are found useful, and to add such other restrictions,
penalties, and provisions, as may effectually attain the end of this
great work.
The laws hereunto relating are numerous, but the judgment and opinions
given upon them are so various and contradictory, and differ so in sundry
places, as to be inconsistent with any one general scheme of management.
Tenthly, that proper persons be appointed in every county to determine
all matters and differences which may arise between the corporation and
the respective parishes.
To prevent any ill usage, neglect or cruelty, it will be necessary to
make provision that the poor may tender their complaints to officers of
the parish; and that those officers having examined the same, and not
finding redress, may apply to persons to be appointed in each county and
each city for that purpose, who may be called supervisors of the poor,
and may have allowance made them for their trouble; and their business
may be to examine the truth of such complaints; and in case either the
parish or corporation judge themselves aggrieved by the determination of
the said supervisors, provision may be made that an appeal lie to the
quarter sessions.
Eleventhly, that the corporation be obliged to provide for all public
beggars, and to put the laws into execution against public beggars and
idle vagrant persons.
Such of the public beggars as can work must be employed, the rest to be
maintained as impotent poor, but the laws to be severely put in execution
against those who shall ask any public alms.
This proposal, which in most parts of it seems to be very maturely
weighed, may be a foundation for those to build upon who have a public
spirit large enough to embrace such a noble undertaking.
But the common obstruction to anything of this nature is a malignant
temper in some who will not let a public work go on if private persons
are to be gainers by it. When they are to get themselves, they abandon
all sense of virtue; but are clothed in her whitest robe when they smell
profit coming to another, masking themselves with a false zeal to the
commonwealth, where their own turn is not to be served. It were better,
indeed, that men would serve their country for the praise and honour that
follow good actions, but this is not to be expected in a nation at least
leaning towards corruption, and in such an age it is as much as we can
hope for if the prospect of some honest gain invites people to do the
public faithful service. For which reason, in any undertaking where it
can be made apparent that a great benefit will accrue to the commonwealth
in general, we ought not to have an evil eye upon what fair advantages
particular men may thereby expect to reap, still taking care to keep
their appetite of getting within moderate bounds, laying all just and
reasonable restraints upon it, and making due provision that they may not
wrong or oppress their fellow subjects.
It is not to be denied, but that if fewer hands were suffered to remain
idle, and if the poor had full employment, it would greatly tend to the
common welfare, and contribute much towards adding every year to the
general stock of England.
Among the methods that we have here proposed of employing the poor, and
making the whole body of the people useful to the public, we think it our
duty to mind those who consider the common welfare of looking with a
compassionate eye into the prisons of this kingdom, where many thousands
consume their time in vice and idleness, wasting the remainder of their
fortunes, or lavishing the substance of their creditors, eating bread and
doing no work, which is contrary to good order, and pernicious to the
commonwealth.
We cannot therefore but recommend the thoughts of some good bill that may
effectually put an end to this mischief so scandalous in a trading
country, which should let no hands remain useless.
It is not at all difficult to contrive such a bill as may relieve and
release the debtor, and yet preserve to his creditors all their fair,
just, and honest rights and interest.
And so we have in this matter endeavoured to show that to preserve and
increase the people, and to make their numbers useful, are methods
conducing to make us gainers in the balance of trade.
FOOTNOTES.
{75} In the book there are no figures in the table at all.—DP.
{76} In the book there are no figures in the table at all.—DP.
{77} In the book there are no figures in the table at all.—DP.
{148} This table spreads over two opposite pages in the book. It has
been split down the middle for this eBook.—DP.]
***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ESSAYS ON MANKIND AND POLITICAL
ARITHMETIC***
******* This file should be named 5619-0.txt or 5619-0.zip *******
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/6/1/5619
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809
North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email
contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
gbnewby@pglaf.org
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.